User talk:Nunh-huh

From Academic Kids

All New: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=0) 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=500) 10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=1000) 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=1500) 20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=2000) 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=2500) 30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=3000) 35 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=3500) 40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Newpages&limit=500&offset=4000) Orphaned: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Lonelypages&limit=500&offset=0) 500 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Lonelypages&limit=500&offset=500) 1001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Lonelypages&limit=500&offset=1000) 1501 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Lonelypages&limit=500&offset=1500)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Wikijunior

• Wikijunior meta page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikijunior)
• b:Wikijunior Big Cats
• b:Wikijunior Solar System
• b:Wikijunior South America
• User:Nunh-huh/sandbox

Refactored: old stuff now just history:

• Wikijunior (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikijunior) Billie Burke, Eugenia Smith, Jonathan Tunick, Robert Bruce Cotton, Rachel, New Haven, Connecticut, New Haven Green, New Haven Colony, Soldaatvanoranje, Generalfeldmarschall, Cfrobel, Wanda Landowska, neutrophil, AIDS, President of the United States in Congress Assembled, various ersatz nations, territoriality, dates, incunabula, Maria Callas sang well (POV! POV!), Viscount Taaffe, still dead, Otto von Habsburg, lifting heavy boxes and abdominal pain The Days of Our Lives, 0: the year I got nothing done. Enzo Fiermonte and other gigolos. Coagulation Wikipedia:Categorization Fraunces Tavern Special:Categories medical classes here. Urinetown, the Gotha, Count Kinsky, the Pergamon Museum.

Contents

1 Zürich to Zurich 2 Princess... 3 Cat Protection 4 Benedict XVI's elected age 5 NHL additions and corrections 6 Time Cube 7 Masturbation 8 prestige 9 Thanks 10 Oxford comma 11 VfD on S.Golomb 12 6FU 13 Invitation to Inquiry 14 AIDS page 15 WP:RM 16 Dionysius 17 Wikijunior name vote 18 AIDS and AIDS reappraisal

Zürich to Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 10:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Princess...

Thanks for the re-correction of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. I just read the talk page after doing the change. Stupid royal namings and politics! violet/riga (t) 10:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering if you know which army regiment DPoW's father served in? My father who was born in the same year swore that he had been in the same unit as him. Albatross2147 12:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to Diana, PoW's old man. Albatross2147 08:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Well it would that they were in the same unit as my old man was in the Bird Catchers (ie. the Royal Scots Greys) ('42-'47) too. However I might mention, purely anecdotally, that my father who was not prone to wartime reminiscence when he eyeballed Spencer walk up the aisle with Di on TV some 35 years later exclaimed, "What's that bastard doing there?" and related a story that indicated that he did not share the same view of the earl's gallantry under fire as the superior officers who at some point mentioned him in despatches. My father never talked about it again and it was only because I came on your article as a result of a typing error that I thought I would query the point. Well you have proved that my old man was not bullsh--ing about his one degree of separation from Diana. And as regards the earl's alleged behaviour - well it was all a very long time ago and far, far away.

Thanks for your help Albatross2147 00:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Cat Protection

You don't think you could acutally protect that article, please? 216.52.110.253 gave up doing more than reverting a long time ago... Kiand 01:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Kiand 01:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

cat article has asplode again, sad to say... same anon user involved, different other editors in opposition. DreamGuy 23:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Benedict XVI's elected age

So I guess the Papacy is a great (but late) birthday present for him, eh? Zscout370 00:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could be. Sometimes when you get a present it turns out you really didn't want it in the first place, though! I hope he surprises those who have little confidence in his ability to use this great gift for good. - Nunh-huh 00:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NHL additions and corrections

Thanks for the work on the stages of lymphoma. I'm still learning about it as I go tonight, and your edits made it much more clear. Glitch010101 05:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time Cube

Ah, sorry, Nunh-huh. I see now that perhaps you intended your edits to Time Cube seriously. However, the Time Cube article is a bed of contention which can easily be thrown in disarray by careless editting. You called Gene Ray a crank, an accusation which would have summoned a murderous hoard screaming "NPOV! NPOV!" until it trampled someone to death. Granted, he is a crank, but that's our opinion rather than testable fact. One-dimensional Tangent 02:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is in fact a fact, and there is certainly some way of working it into the article, which is a morass of mealy-mouthed and ill-expressed nonsense. Nonetheless, if you'd prefer to deal with it, I'm fine with that. I've grown accustomed to the fact that Wikipedia will contain articles which are little more than cesspools, and only get upset if they start to overflow. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still, I find it amusing to see how objectively we can discuss complete nonsense. Cheers. One-dimensional Tangent 03:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know....I would think the following both more objective and more useful:

http://www.mcwetboy.com/mcwetlog/index.phtml?archive=11_01 Time Cube: the funniest bit of earnest online insanity I've seen in years. http://www.crank.net/timecube.html http://weblog.soulhuntre.com/items/id/001738/ What might have been a fairly amusing little argument on an obscure message forum for people who like to debate odd theories turned into a lifelong obsession that spans the ‘net. Gene is wrong in so many levels but he won’t ever see that. When you add in a healthy dose of some serious personality disorders (I couldn’t even begin to pick just one) you get a e2:crackpot of stunning proportions that postulates a vast conspiracy of (I think) Jews to keep Gene downtrodden. http://home.swbell.net/drt1/pseudo.html Page after page of this bizarre rambling definately proves something, but I'm not sure which: Is Gene Ray taking a LOT of LSD, or does he just need his medication increased? http://www.insolitology.com/topten/generay.htm Gene is the biggest oddball in the world, and the originator of the biggest oddball movement on the Internet. http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/timecube.html Time Cube is a seemingly endless schizophrenic fucking spewing by the (self-proclaimed) "Wisest Human" that defies nearly every possible level of logic, purpose, dignity, and everything else crucial to the act of communication and/or the understanding of reality. If you've ever wondered what a -400 Mental Balance in Kult is like, or what overdosing on both crack and acid while carefully scraping out your brain to replace it with flaming shit might do to you, or what's really inside Happy Noodle Boy's mind, the Time Cube website is a useful example.... understanding the Time Cube depends crucially on acid, pot, hard alcohol, and other mind-altering substances, so you should start taking those NOW and avoid the rush.

- Nunh-huh 03:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is going to become a pointless revert war with 211.28.*.*, and based on the talk pages he/she has a lot more patience than any of us. I think we need to move this into mediation or at least a survey (so we can have an official consensus favouring a simple page). I've proposed this idea to 211.28.*.* on the talk page, please feel free to join in and add similar comments. Cheradenine 18:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Masturbation

Would you care to register an opinon on the Masturbation Talk page as to whether a full color photograph of male masturbation is suitable for that page? Thank you. Force10 21:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should reserve pictures of sexual acts for sex manuals, and that "Wikipedia is not a sex manual". However, there exist a considerable coterie of folk who love putting explicit picture in Wikipedia, and as long as they remain culturally insensitive and insist on "their way or the highway" it's fruitless to dispute with them. Our "masturbation" article is puerile, and an embarassment to Wikipedians of good sense, with or without photos. - Nunh-huh 02:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

prestige

deftly done. Gzuckier 17:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) yeah, my contribution in a similar vein was

Although the school is referred to as "hyper-prestigious" by college English professor and blogger Margaret Soltan (http://margaretsoltan.phenominet.com/2004/02/prof-made-her-puke-womens-libber.html), many Wikipeidians feel that this is an arbitrary judgement without factual merit.

but, having received the objective source they had requested, they still refused to go away. Gzuckier 17:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What can I say? When I'm right I'm right. Nohat 18:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you have nothing to say, that too would be fine. - Nunh-huh 18:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) I see the prestige argument and the campus murder argument as being similar, in being an overzealous attempt to stndardize all such articles on higher educational institutions into somewhat of a table format, at least conceptually; so that whatever school you could look up "prestigious, yes or not", "famous murders on campus", etc. While said concept is valuable for a summary for each school's basics, nevertheless there is still a particular individual character of each school which is orthogonal and irrelevant to any other school and deserves special attention in and of itself, regardless of whether other schools have a similar discussion or not. As I said, at Yale a discussion about students getting robbed, mugged, and murdered by random New haven residents is appropriate; at MIT, people who kill themselves as a result of high stress alienation and isolation. Or at yale, mit, or harvard prestige can be taken for granted, without obviating the need to argue whether university of michigan is prestigious or not. but that's just my opinion. Gzuckier 18:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. Fortunately we're writing (or at least trying to, when not distracted by pointless revert wars and sophistry-of-the-sort-most-often-found-in-a-dorm-room) an encyclopedia, not a "Guide to the Colleges". - Nunh-huh 18:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my spelling error, and for the info that you added, on the Oscar Wilde page. Your nickname is perfect to go with finding such a simple goof. I guess that I have become one of thoses lazy "let the spell check fix it" so and so's and since wiki doesn't have that feature I'll pay better attention to what I am doing in the future. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 14:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding and correcting information on the Lady Mary Cambridge page. I am new to this and seeing the corrections to made will help to make those adjustments myself in the future. ESQ24

Oxford comma

Hello. In the past, you've spoken in favor of the serial comma in the WP Manual of Style. Currently, two or three users have been taking out all guidance on that in favor of a statement that the MoS takes no position. They've said they reached a consensus on the talk page. Would you care to comment there? Jonathunder 22:03, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Of course their position makes no sense, so trying to reason with them seems likely to produce only frustration. I think I'll content myself with slipping in the comma when it's missing. - Nunh-huh 01:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

VfD on S.Golomb

Hi there! You forgot me while counting the votes. I also made a 'keep' making it 12 to 1. Radiant_* 07:43, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, not intentional. I must have missed your vote because it was in the comments section. Go right ahead and update the tally. - Nunh-huh 21:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

6FU

Yes, thank you for bringing up the idea for more flavorful deaths. I wanted someone else's opinion since I created the article. It looks better actually. Thanks. Sfufan2005 02:15, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to Inquiry

Nunh-huh, you are cordially invited to join the Inquiry project. Adraeus 10:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade took over the project, and twisted its purpose. Unfortunately, the project can't be deleted; however, I'm moving it offsite so I can exhibit more control over the documentation and membership. Adraeus 14:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I would have considerably less trepidation about the collegiality, success, and intent of the latter project. - Nunh-huh 23:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That's just you apparently. Adraeus 23:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I find that very surprising. By latter I mean yours. - Nunh-huh 00:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I know what you meant. Andrevan, BDAbramson, Dbachmann, Everyking, FeloniousMonk, RickK, sannse, and Slrubenstein all support the real Inquiry project. I'm a professional project manager and I'm a proficient researcher. Regardless of what you think about my credibility and me personally, the Inquiry project will initially play a supporting rule by focusing on the professional acquisition, collection, dissemination, and publishing of academic research useful to encyclopedic articles. Have you ever seen a bibliography from a peer reviewed journal? Sometimes the bibliographies extend for pages. That's the type of research Inquiry aims to provide: material that is professionally researched, and all that research professionalism entails. With a basic issue tracking system, Wikipedia editors may interact with the Inquiry database by requesting material, and filing requests for citation of existing articles. I'm confident that the the project will work quite well. There's only one hindrance to its success: finding the right people. I can remedy that problem. Adraeus 00:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't criticised either you personally or your credibility. I'm sorry that you have the notion that I have. I support any project that could enhance the accuracy, and therefore the authority, of Wikipedia. (And yes, I do have some familiarity with bibliographies and peer-reviewed journals <g>.) - Nunh-huh 01:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I know we've had issues in the past so I think I was fair (although wrong) in assuming you don't like me. Regardless, I think you are amazingly intelligent, and I respect you greatly for the contributions you've provided to Wikipedia. Inquiry would work far better offsite because it wouldn't be subject to Wikipedia policies which do not provide real projects with the protection and autonomy that a project needs to flourish. By the way, I think I misinterpreted your statement about less trepidation. I should avoid discussion at all costs when I'm incredibly fatigued. Oops! Do accept my humblest apologies for misinterpreting your statement and intent. Adraeus 13:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

My sentence was a little convoluted: the result of trying to avoid being accused of "personal attack" for saying something like "I couldn't be a part of any project that takes Sam Spade/Jack Lynch's advice seriously or welcomes his participation". Since that's not an attack but simply a clear statement of my feelings, I should have just gone ahead and said it. I don't recall that we've clashed mightily over anything, and certainly not in a way that's left me with a grudge. If there's any way I can help with Inquiry, let me know. - Nunh-huh 00:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC) - oh, and thanks for your kind words! - Nunh-huh 00:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

AIDS page

Hi there. I see you expressed concern about the state of the AIDS article in April, but I'm not sure exactly about what. I am even more concerned about it now, and have slapped an NPOV dispute on it. Would you please have a look? --Robert Merkel 01:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM

On requested moves WP:RM, comments and votes should not appear on the WP:RM page because they will be discounted. You must add them to the Talk page of the article of the proposed move. I have just moved your comments to Talk:Mary_Kay_Letourneau#Name_change from WP:RM but it was after the decision had already been made. Next time please add them to the talk page and not the WP:RM page Philip Baird Shearer 10:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Dionysius

Thank you for pointing out the error I introduced into the Common Era article. That was (thankfully) a rare one for me. However you might have fixed the error instead of reverting it, because the same edit had fixed two other errors in the article. I can understand if you were in a hurry and missed that. I have since clarified the explanation of the Gregorian calendar, which was misleading, and properly pointed out Dionysius' role, which was the important one with repect to the CE article. Thanks again for serving as a backstop. --Blainster 02:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article still needs a thorough going over. It still seems to confuse "Common Era" and the "Gregorian Calendar". If you don't get to it I'll be happy to give it another look. - Nunh-huh 02:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior name vote

m:Wikijunior project name Voting will end June 6, 2005 at 11:30 am EST. -- user:Zanimum

AIDS and AIDS reappraisal

I thought we might more constructively engage a discussion off the main talk pages for these articles, because I don't think that either of these articles is very good right now, and I hope we can work constructively to improve things. I don't like the revert wars that have been going on and I hope you agree. What I have been saying, and wish to make clear, is that I am non-partisan on the issue. There is a mainstream scientific view that ought to have precedence, and there are respectable scientists who disagree and ought to be given fair mention. If we can achieve this kind of balance, there will be no need for NPOV or factual disputes to be maintained. When you undo my edits on the grounds of removing "waffling" I think it is unhelpful. Will you at least grant good faith on my part? Whig 04:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not certain that we agree on what is wrong with the articles, so it's difficult to see common ground on how to improve them. I certainly don't think either article would be improved by merger: the dissidents certainly won't be satisfied with the number of words it would be appropriate to devote to them in an article on AIDS, (roughly "for any scientific fact, there are a group of people who deny it: see link): while those without a revisionist agenda don't much care for the distortions and debating style which cannot, apparently, be rooted out from the dissident page(s). If you believe the AIDS article suffers from being able to make clear statements without detailing dissident objections, I simply do not share your opinion. I do have a suggestion: I think it may be helpful if you list the things you find wanting. Some of the things you have listed would indeed improve the article, and wording could be worked out on talk pages without reversion. But an AIDS article in which each reference to the fact that it is caused by HIV is hedged would be unreadable, inferior, uninformative. Assumptions of good faith have led to the AIDS article becoming a mess, through exploitation of that good will by subtle distortion and near-sabotage. This makes it a bit difficult to extend that same assumption of good will to those who ally themselves with those responsible for the original sabotage. Ultimately good faith won't have to be assumed, because it will have been demonstrated by those who have it, and won't be by those who don't. - Nunh-huh 04:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stating scientific theories as facts is problematical in the first place, because it denies the scientific method, which entails constant reconsideration and the formation of new hypotheses to be tested and occasionally developed into more predictive or explanatory theories. That is largely what separates science from theology. With that said, simple "denial" is not scientific either. Those who "deny" evolution, for instance, but have no testable hypothesis to offer in its place, are not practicing science. We need not (and I agree, should not) provide a link to everyone who might deny any given statement.

To put this in the context of a different scientific dispute, would you support an article on the Big Bang beginning, "The Big Bang is the method by which the universe began"? I hope you would not, and I think that article is illustrative. Even if a given theory is the consensus of the scientific community at one point in time, does not mean it is an established fact. Certain observations tend to confirm or refute the theory, and those observations ought to be fairly reported, such as that recent measurements suggest that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. This will hopefully lead eventually to a revised theory that makes more accurate predictions, which does not mean that the advocates of the steady state theory were correct either, nor that any revision must mean that "the bible had it right" or whatever.

Your analogies are not helpful. The fact is that HIV causes AIDS, as has been shown by the scientific method. Arguments to the contrary are flawed, and generally are founded on "debating points" rather than scientific method. If we were to embrace the scientific method to Wikipedia's bosom, and restrict ourselves to tested hypotheses, the AIDS revisionist article would be very short indeed. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see where you stand, and that you are quite certain of your belief. I lack such certainty, but remain open to scientific demonstration. If HIV is certainly the cause of AIDS, then it should be possible to develop an attenuated virus that would stimulate immunity to further infection, and that would be wonderful, a vaccine. Troublingly, though, this would mean all vaccinated people would have HIV antibodies, which would make the present-day diagnostic tests rather less useful. All such concerns aside, I hope this will prove effective in the very near future. Indeed, this would and should invalidate most or all of the AIDS reappraisal article and therefore I agree it should be very much shortened. Please go ahead and do what mass removals you think appropriate, but be sure to cite your sources. I wouldn't want there to be any doubt that you are correct, and I hope you have the references to back your position up. It will be most helpful to me to learn them. Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see that you want to depict knowledge as mere belief, and that you wish to write about the cause of AIDS without having researched it. This seems unreasonable to me. Until you do that research, you should be aware that there are many viruses for which no vaccines have been developed, that not all vaccines involve use of an attentuated virus, and that not all vaccines would necessarily make such tests as HIV viral loads unuseful. But even if an HIV vaccine were developed, there would be a population which would still proclaim that HIV and AIDS are unrelated. The HIV deniers would not agree with you that AIDS reappraisal article was invalidated: at most it would need a new paragraph handwaving the results away. I extend your thoughtful invitation to me to you in turn: go ahead and make what changes you feel necessary, after you have done some basic research and can cite something to justify them. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the subject of AIDS is that it has a much more direct and immediate impact upon people, and lives are actually at stake. Thus there tends to be a much more impassioned argument, with those on both sides feeling that the other is wrong and responsible for people either (depending on POV) refusing life-sustaining treatment, or taking toxic chemicals which cause more harm than good.

Fortunately, we don't have to guess which of these is correct. We now have adequate scientific tests of these two positions, and clinical experience of more than two decades. Those who take the toxic chemicals live longer. Those who take the toxic chemicals have fewer episodes of opportunistic infections. Those who take the toxic chemicals are hospitalized less frequently. Those pregnant women who take the toxic chemicals are less likely to transmit HIV to their children, and those children are more likely to live to adulthood rather than dying in infancy of AIDS. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please cite. Should we move back to the AIDS Talk page? Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, these are basic concepts. If you are unaware that the survival times of AIDS patients has increased since the introduction of HAART, or that the use of antiretrovirals during delivery decreases the risk of transmission to infants, you can find that information easily. Here's one citation for each of these: there are hundreds more.

HAART has had a significant impact on survival 10 years after HIV infection in all age groups: "Survival after introduction of HAART in people with known duration of HIV-1 infection. The CASCADE Collaboration. Concerted Action on Serconversion to AIDS and Death in Europe." Lancet. 2000;355:1158-1159.

HAART has dramatically increased the time from HIV infection to AIDS: Tassie JM, Grabar S, Lancar R, et al. "Time to AIDS from 1992 to 1999 in HIV-1-infected subjects with known data of infection." J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;30:81-87.

HAART has increased the chance of surviving for 2 years after AIDS onset: Fordyce EJ, Singh TP, Nash D, et al. "Survival rates in NYC in the era of combination ART." J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;30:111-118

Reduction of maternal-child transmission risk: Connor EM, Sperling RS, Gelber R, et al. "Reduction of maternal-infant transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 with zidovudine treatment." N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1173-1180.

I look forward to seeing how you work these into the AIDS and AIDS denial articles. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that Wikipedia ought not to be in the business of letting the passions of either side override our policy to maintain NPOV.

It's not about passions, it's about not misinforming our readers. These "sides" are not equal in terms of evidence or intellectual honesty. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm on neither side, you can surely convince me with the evidence that you have at hand to cite. Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but you are on the side that proposes that denialists have something to teach us. And you are on the side that refuses to do the requisite research, but demands to have their opinions valued. HIV denialists are not convinced by citations or evidence: the evidence is made to conform to their theory, and their theory is not made to conform to the evidence. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We as Wikipedians don't do original research, we don't claim to know who is right, we should say that the most prevalent theory is X, that some have questioned it on specific and cited grounds, and other theories Y or Z which might have a separate article (and not be lumped together as "X reappraisal") are likewise questioned on more (or less) substantial cited grounds. Do we at least agree that this is how we ought to be doing things? Whig 05:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't entertain specious arguments, we should report them. As specious. Or as dishonest, which ever the case may be. Placing the specious arguments together or separately is a matter of no concern to me, though they do use the same sort of arguments and they would be repetitive if separated. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't simply say "That argument is specious" without specifically saying that "we've circumnavigated the globe and taken pictures from space and measured the curvature of the earth." Whig 07:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That argument is specious. This is not a case of "doubt" on "specific and cited" grounds, and is not a case of two competing explanations of the origins of AIDS. It's an explanation on one hand, and a few guys yelling "Is not!, Is not!" on the other. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AIDS revisionists should get roughly the same treatment in the AIDS article as Flat-Earthers get in the Earth article. The "debate" has been decided, it's just that some people haven't gotten the message. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right. Send the message. Put out the studies and the support to rebut the contrary arguments. Indeed, you should do so in the main AIDS article so that people won't be left with any misimpression that their pet hypotheses haven't been disproven. Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, AIDS denialists have received the message and rejected it. It doesn't need to be sent again. Anyone who is an AID denialist at this point in time is incapable of being persuaded by evidence. And an AIDS article aimed at "persuading" AIDS denialists would suck big time. It is much better to present the established information in a straightforward manner than to transform the AIDS article into a debate club. An article refuting the strawmen thrown up by denialists might be instructive (see [1] (http://www.skeptic.com/03.2.harris-aids.html) for how such an article might look) and informative, but it would not be an article about AIDS. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your devotion to not reverting didn't last long. Ah, well. - Nunh-huh 04:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You reverted me. I reinstated and gave my reasoning. Whig 05:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and if I were to revert you again I could say the same thing you just did. And that might lead to an erosion of your assumption of good faith. Such actions do that. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is unhelpful. You wish a unilateral right to revert, and then accuse me of bad faith? Whig 07:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are wounded by my (supposed) accusation, and yet wish to claim I want a unilateral right to revert? I agree with your suggestion that discussion of these articles should return to their respective talk pages, where it is possible it will result in better articles. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)