User talk:Johnbyhouston

Talk pages
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. MastCell Talk 04:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, material on Wikipedia must be verifiable through reference to a reliable source. You inserted the claim that Peter Duesberg had "received the Nobel Prize for discovering retroviruses" . That's a compound error; Duesberg has not won the Nobel Prize, and he did not discover retroviruses. We rely on verifiability to prevent such glaring errors from creeping into Wikipedia. I'll assume this was just excess enthusiasm for Duesberg's ideas, rather than a deliberate falsehood on your part. If you'd like help finding appropriate encyclopedic sources, I can point you in the right direction, or you can browse around the instructional areas of this site. MastCell Talk 04:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Say, I don't know whether to answer here or at your page or what.(I guess you won't look here, but don't know if I should insert something on your page.) Sorry about the 'compound error,' but wouldn't it make sense to delete that, as opposed to everything? I was hoping to insert a little rebuttal to the biased page itself, but obviously making that giant, glaring error really screwed it up, sorry. (I looked up some things that I thought would lead me to it, but I find I must be wrong--so I confused something, not even sure how. Mullis & Pauling and some other Nobel winners were in some related material I had, and I don't know if that's what I confused.)  I must say on your page many people have complained of your bias. I have occasionally tried to add things to Wiki programs, ALWAYS to have them disappear later. I think the people who are experts in working Wikis really hold tight control, so their opinions bury any dissent. It's funny the basics & welcomes say be bold and try to make edits, but really there are plenty folks who are going to wipe it out, anyhow. I didn't know the rules of anything--a talk page, etc. But it's easy for you to use the technicalities to block intent, like using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit. Power ALWAYS corrupts, huh? Well, thanks for helping, if you were helping. Unfortunately, the article on Alive&Well remains biased to the point of misleading. Maybe I'll try to work something up again, if I have time. It's very important to get people to look at alternatives, because we're drowning in a sea of misinformation, often from "official" and "expert" sources. Clearly you believe Duesberg is not a valid expert, but I'd suggest that of Gallo, Fauci, etc. I was going to tell you this some years ago, but I died of bird flu. Johnbyhouston (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the spirit of Wikipedia's laws is that we present accurate information which honestly represents the current state of human knowledge. In that light, I was acting in the spirit of the law when I removed the inaccurate assertions about Peter Duesberg. That's not a "technicality", and it's disappointing that you see it in those terms. It's dishonest to pretend that HIV/AIDS is considered an open scientific question - it's clearly not. People can believe, and claim, whatever they like, but basic honesty and integrity compel us to present these claims in context rather than as some sort of equally valid alternative reality. Similarly, you are welcome to believe that Peter Duesberg is a better source of HIV/AIDS information than the NIH, WHO, and every scientist who actually does HIV/AIDS research. However, you're not welcome to alter Wikipedia to promote that viewpoint, since it is demonstrably that of a tiny fringe of True Believers. That's the spirit of Wikipedia's policies, at least insofar as I understand them. MastCell Talk 00:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)