Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BruceSwanson/combining duesberg hypothesis Inventing

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:BruceSwanson/combining duesberg hypothesis Inventing
POV fork of the existing article Inventing the AIDS Virus that is being rewritten to replace the existing article on the Duesberg hypothesis. This rewrite aims to minimise criticism of this fringe theory - as the author says on the draft talkpage - "Criticism of the Duesberg Hypothesis would be reframed as criticism of the book, and kept restricted to one section of the article.". So in essence this is a POV fork of one article being prepared to function as a POV version of another article. Delete per WP:UP. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Huh. Wow. Per nom, I suppose.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Trenchant and insightful. BruceSwanson (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep One of the specific encouraged uses of userspace - the idea that proposed major articles or rewrites thereof are better done in userspace than in mainspace is valid. Will it get consensus if placed in the mainspace? That is for the editors there to decide, not for MfD to decide. Collect (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:UCS. The page will either sit indefinitely, or will get proposed and shot down.  The book and hypothesis are outrageous pseudoscience and the editor in question is an admitted AIDS denialist who is unlikely to use the draft to improve the page (and notes that his next act will be to attack hepatitic C, another AIDS denailist target .  The purpose of the page fundamentally breaks numerous policies and guidelines on wikipedia (WP:FRINGE - AIDS denialism, WP:RS - the book is not one, WP:UNDUE - any credibility given to Duesberg's opinion is undue weight, WP:SOAP/WP:ADVOCACY/WP:CPUSH/WP:COAT - this is personal beliefs pushing editing).  Fundamentally, any expansion of Duesberg's pseudoscience is flatly inappropriate.  HIV causes AIDS, there is absolutely crystal clear scientific consensus on this, and no page on wikipedia should attempt to cast doubt on this fact.  Fundamentally, the article, written by this editor, can not ever be placed in mainspace.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment' Might you indicate which policy says what you assert to be "pseudoscience" can not be in userspace?  You appear to use IDONTLIKEIT as the rationale for deletion - while many userspace pages contain references to religion, ESP, "flat earth" and so on -- ought they be excised from userspace?   Note further that userspace != mainspace, else the argument that something would not be allowed in mainspace would be applicable to almost all userspace . Collect (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This page can never go into mainspace, not in its current form, and not in its "ultimate" form, since AIDS denialism is clear pseudoscience - I can provide you the references, but the assertion that HIV does not cause AIDS in general and Peter Duesberg's theories in particular are both considered unambiguous pseudoscience - AIDS denialism and Peter Duesberg go through this in detail, but I can port over some explicit references if you'd like. Of course, Seth Kalichman's Denying AIDS is a good place to start, where Duesberg has his own chapter.  The current page for the Duesberg hypothesis and Inventing the AIDS virus are both pretty much "finished" - much as wikipedia is not done, these articles, not based on any data therefore never subject to change, and one is based on a 14-year-old book that was outdated and flat-out incorrect when published.  Would we allow in userspace a subpage that clearly advocated for flat earthism being true?  Or creationism?  Or the moon landing hoax?  Unlike religion and ESP where there is actual debate, data-based research and discussion, there is no debate about HIV causing AIDS and no page on wikipedia can be improved by attempting to foster the notion.  I've tolerated pages where ambiguity is present, even for nonsense like satanic ritual abuse that has 99% agreement of being a moral panic.  But this isn't the case, this is unambiguous.  The fact that this will clearly result in a POV-fork page if implemented is also underscored by BS' comments on the talk version of the page - have a look.
 * At best the page would result in a "tell both sides" version that gives undue weight to Duesberg's illogical, unsubstantiated, irrational beliefs. At worst, it would become an apologetics page suggesting quite clearly that Duesberg is an as-yet unvindicated genius who is right about HIV being a harmless passenger virus.  In no way is wikipedia improved by either outcome.  The intent is to push a POV, flatly, unambiguously and from the mouth of the editor himself.  The intent is clear, that this page will never result in a neutral form that is acceptable to the community.  My comments are an elaboration of TimVickers nom rational, but I will add also "you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute" (using wikipedia to promote AIDS denialism is disreputable in my mind), second Tim's WP:UP since this is nothing more than a preferred version being stored.  It has existed since April, not been edited since May, and as I initially said and later elaborated on, it can ultimately never go into mainspace.
 * I admit it's a complicated rationale that relies as much on sources as on policies and guidelines - but UCS was my inital reason  No-one else may accept it, but I firmly believe there are some things that lack all merit, and the Duesber hypothesis is one of them - and the scientific community agrees with me.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WLU, who beat me by minutes in quoting the disrepute passage. Also, given that this has zero chance of lasting longer than a snowball deletion debate in mainspace, it seems more respectful to Bruce to nip it in the bud now rather than allow him to vainly spend more time on it.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I would ask the above real-name editors Adrian J. Hunter and Tim Vickers to consider the text of my proposed page and then compare it with WLU's comments above. I would ask them to pay particular attention to WLU's comments that Duesberg's ideas have less credibility than charges of satanic ritual abuse. Question to you both: which set of ideas, in your opinion, tends to bring Wikipedia into greater disrepute? BruceSwanson (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Response Coverage of Duesberg's ideas does not bring Wikipedia into disrepute. Coverage of satanic ritual abuse does not bring Wikipedia into disrepute.  Inappropriately sympathetic coverage of either topic would bring Wikipedia into disrepute.  Look at the current leads to Satanic ritual abuse, Duesberg hypothesis, and Inventing the AIDS virus.  All three make clear that the subject of the article has been discredited.  User:BruceSwanson/combining duesberg hypothesis Inventing fails to do that.  That failure is the source of the disrepute.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The leads to The Bible, The Koran, and Mein Kampf also say nothing about their respective truths being discredited. (The Kampf-article even lists the book's Table of Contents.) Do you therefore think those three articles are Inappropriately sympathetic? By contrast, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion lead does address its subject's lack of veracity -- but merely by stating factually that the book has been found to be a forgery. The book's discredit is therefore integral to any discussion of it, and this is reflected in the article. Both the Kampf and Protocols articles are free of propaganda, and simply recite the known facts without further comment. The current lead to Inventing the AIDS Virus contains a propagandistic interjection unworthy of Wikipedia (The scientific evidence is conclusive that this theory, known as the "Duesberg hypothesis", is incorrect and it is the unambiguous scientific consensus that HIV is in fact the cause of AIDS.). That is baldfaced POVing and a baldfaced lie -- the consensus is anything but "unambiguous" -- there are many Root-Bernstein's out there with many degrees of agreement and disagreement with the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Informed readers will spot that "unambiguous" instantly and with genuine contempt for whoever wrote it.


 * My version is a collection of statements derived only from the book. You can't expect a book to discredit itself. I should add that deleting the page in question won't make it go away. I think your real complaint is that my version is more detailed than the present version and promises to become more so (whether it's deleted for the moment or not). The extent of detail is a reflection of the seriousness and complexity of a subject that is also not going away. BruceSwanson (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So to summarise your position, you are unhappy with the current state of the Inventing the AIDS Virus article and would like to keep this version in your userspace, since you feel it is closer to the truth. I think we're done here. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And of course, let's not forget that because other pages have problems does not mean we propagate those problems across other pages. And, of course, the Bible and Koran are not meant to represent factual, scientific arguments, while Duesberg's pseudoscientific hypothesis is supposed to.  Mein Kampf is an ostensible autobiography.  Not comparable.  I realize I'm not a "named editor", but fortunately wikipedia doesn't require real names to be used and therefore my objections carry as much weight as anyone else's and ignoring them won't make them any less valid for the closing admin.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.