373:, though the source doesn't say what level of confidence they used (probably 95%). The value quoted (33.2) is the mean value of their estimates. Outside of a scientific paper, these number aren't particularly interesting and on its own, 33.2 million makes the reader think the confidence interval could be . Saying "33 million" or even "over 30 million" is better. It is just an estimate.
275:
mentioned briefly in the lead, but a full discussion of the epidemiology of Hep C belongs in the disease article. Perhaps the HIV list could mention some basic stats about what proportion of HIV-carriers are ignorant of their status? I wouldn't oppose changing the name to "List of known HIV-positive people" but don't feel it is "essential".
307:
This is a categorized, alphabetical list of people who are known to have been infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the pathogen that causes AIDS, including those who have died. UNAIDS and the WHO estimate that, as of
December 2007, the number of people living with HIV has reached its
151:
Am I not understanding something. If it's a "dynamic" or "incomplete" list, it must include at least all of the major items (people, in this case). The way the scope (and title) are framed, this is impossible. I know of someone "major" who should be listed, for example, but it's a private matter. At
125:
It does include all of the major items. Of course only published in reliable sources. The fact that many people don't include their status or don't know about it is not a reason to say it is not comprehensive. These are obviously not included in reliable sources so can't be in the list. Regarding the
645:
It will never be complete (we're in for a lot of lawsuits if this can't be reliably sourced) but
Knowledge (XXG)'s policy is that it strives for verifiability, not truth. Therefore, verifiable entries only is enough for an FL, it will never be complete as more people are born/diagnosed every second
287:
In which case, the scope of the list might be more carefully delineated in the lead. At the moment, "categorised" is vague in the first sentence, and seems to promise that all whose HIV-positive status is known (just to themselves and their doctor?) will be listed below. The second sentence says the
225:
The list is biased but that is probably a consequence of being on en-WP, requiring reliable sources, the nature of the disease, the freedom to which certain societies allow people to be open about having it, and the extent to which journalists are interested in writing about people with some careers
518:
I reviewed that paragraph in the lead and found a couple of problems. The cited source does not give the estimate "More than 25 million others have died" (at least, I could not find it anywhere in the cited source). There is also an unsourced claim that AIDS is one of the most destructive pandemics
501:
and settled for "Globally, an estimated 33.2 million people lived with HIV in 2007, including 2.5 million children." This says "estimated", which tells the reader the number isn't exact. For estimates where the range is quite wide I also gave the range, for example, "An estimated 2.5 million (range
187:
Regarding selection methods, I have spent quite a while trawling the archives of the New York Times and other newspapers, books on the history of AIDS, and
Knowledge (XXG) itself (using Google). Given the nature of these sources, some geographical bias is inevitable (and consistent with the rest of
211:
WP has always taken a pragmatic approach to judging the comprehensiveness of effectively unbounded people lists. If reviewers can find many more entries for the list, then it is probably not comprehensive. For a list this size, I'd expect to be able to find a few either overlooked or recently made
93:
Since this is of the second type (the "otherwise"), it must include at least all of the major items, i.e., all of the major people who have HIV in each category. It doesn't. It will never be able to to do this, since (1) many many people do not disclose their HIV-positive status, and (2) many many
274:
encourages a compromise between simple, obvious titles and precise but unwieldy ones. Where do we draw the line: "List of people known to be HIV-positive, who are open about it, and have been written about by
English-language journalists"? With Hep C, the unknowns utterly dwarf the knowns. That's
548:
Perhaps it's because I'm relatively new to FLC that I quail at the potential for POV (in inclusion/exclusion, whether on purpose or by accident) in the selection process for many lists of people. Even more so for lists of, say, alumni of univerisities, where it's impossible for reviewers to tell
344:
Agree. 33 million is more appropriate here. Should the "categorized, alphabetical" aspect of the list be moved out of the lead sentence? How would you make "categorized" less "vague" and why? It is just an arbitrary grouping for convenience, rather than any exact scientific division. I'm puzzled
217:
The title cannot contain the words "notable" or "famous" because WP guidelines forbid it, and WP lists only notable people anyway. I suggest the scope definition in the lead be tweaked to include "notable" to clarify things. Notability, for these purposes, has always been defined as having (or a
417:
be calculated to that degree of accuracy, for some of the reasons I've given above. And there's the time problem: the numbers infected are growing at an alarming rate. In a year, how many will be added? 33 point something is very misleading in these circumstances. I'm happy for "well over 30
549:
whether there's a bias in the selection. Adult film actors is a bad term: could be antonym of "child film actors", an unfortunate couplet. At least a hyphen (adult-film actors), or call a spade a spade. Could the title at least be changed to "List of notable HIV-positive people"?
626:(a woman who who was stoned and stabbed to death for admitting she had AIDS) was converted to a redirect to this list article. IMO, it is reasonable for the list to include people who lack articles if they are notable only in connection with their infection status. --
522:
The cited source does estimate 2007 deaths, so we can include that. I think it helpful to briefly mention that about 15% are children (this fits into the Ryan White picture) and that the vast majority of deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa (to give a global
174:
If it is not published in a reliable source how can it be "major"? Only in regards to
Knowledge (XXG) of course. The criteria for the list are 1: Person has a Knowledge (XXG) article 2: HIV/AIDS information is published in a reliable source.
345:
about the "reached its highest level" statement. I first read this as "has peaked" but I actually think it means "is still growing". Could we just say "... December 2007, the number of people living with HIV is around 33 million"?
21:
226:
rather than others. If, for example, there are several notable
Bollywood actors missing from the list, then that might imply the editors weren't researching wide enough. Some specific examples of insufficiency are needed.
83:
Glad the article has been improved during the process. Still a little hazy about the "pragmatic" approach to the requirement for comprehensiveness. I'll shut up about it and watch how the issue is treated.
218:
reasonable expectation of having) an en-WP article. The HIV status of these people must be known and in the public domain. I think that is reasonably clear from the lead definition + the requirements of
515:
Unless there are dueling estimates and considerable controversy (which is not the case here) I think it's better not to put the source in the main text, as it clutters up the text; a footnote is plenty.
619:
It would, however, be helpful to add some words to the intro to clarify that the list is limited to notable people (including some who are notable solely in connection with their infection).
357:
That number is derived directly from the source though. To be specific "33.2 million ". Why should it be a round number when the source itself does not specify a round number?
622:
In spite of the "rule" that all names on the list must have their own articles, I see at least one name that is on the list without having an article. The former article about
610:
The list is admittedly not complete. However, it's impressively comprehensive, and thus meets the FL criteria. My involvement with it began 3 months ago when I added
89:
It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate,...
34:
17:
97:
A second aspect of non-comprehensiveness is the bias towards
American and, to a lesser extent, British people. How many Indian actors, for example, have HIV?
127:
44:
663:
635:
600:
584:
562:
542:
512:
There is no single right way to present estimates like these; a lot of it depends on the presumed competence (and impatience level) of your readership.
465:
453:
431:
408:
392:
380:
364:
352:
339:
282:
262:
233:
197:
182:
169:
145:
116:
242:
HIV-positive people" would normally be a tautology in this context, but here it's essential, since so many people in the categories chosen do
614:, who I considered to be a serious omission. After adding him, I spent a little time searching for noteworthy omissions and did not find any.
436:
The sentence associates the estimate with a precise date, and in any case the growth is perhaps less dramatic than you think - see slide 4
458:
I've asked
Eubulides for his learned opinion. Tony, you hint that there are there other aspects of the article that you'd like examined?
100:
What's an "adult film actor"? If that's coy-speak for "porn star", it should be linked to that article, at least on first occurrence.
611:
413:
We've strayed onto an unexpected issue. There are more things at stake: I'm unwilling to give our readers the idea that the numbers
138:
so I can add a link to that. The same for the final periods, if it is grammatically correct to have no periods they can be removed.
267:
152:
the moment, it's impossible to guage whether the selection is POV, and that is another breach of the criteria. Just how
68:
126:
bias towards the Anglo-Saxon world. The reason for that is that it was decided to not use red links in the list per
288:
list is 33.2 million (which, BTW, I find too precise at one decimal point, given the limits of the methodology).
130:. Only people with a Knowledge (XXG) article are included and since this is the English Knowledge (XXG)....
212:
public. You'd also expect to find a handful that might be added if only reliable sources could be found.
437:
538:
449:
441:
370:
193:
57:
134:
I think adult film actor was the name of the article at the time it was featured. I see it is now
658:
389:
361:
179:
142:
135:
385:
I know. I just don't like to change a source derived number. Even for something minor as this.
580:
575:. A reader would think the title refers to the former while it actually refers to the latter.
505:
The ranges are not 95% confidence intervals; they are merely plausibility bounds. Please see
271:
631:
219:
188:
en-WP). Nevertheless, I would be very surprised if anyone found a really notable omission.
557:
463:
426:
406:
378:
350:
334:
280:
257:
231:
164:
111:
534:
445:
398:
189:
572:
649:
597:
386:
358:
176:
139:
623:
576:
401:. He knows far more than I do about what is acceptable and correct in this regard.
103:
A minor issue: why the final periods after non-sentences in the "Comments" column?
270:, of course. I know there are missing attributes in the title of these lists, but
502:
1.8–4.1 million) people were newly infected in 2007, including 420,000 children."
627:
550:
459:
419:
402:
374:
346:
327:
276:
250:
227:
157:
104:
506:
43:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
498:
238:
That might help, but the title is still wrong: "List of
527:
61:
571:
But "notable" is different per the dictionary and per
596:, it looks comprehensive and complete enough to me.
530:
to try to address the above problems. Hope it helps.
671:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
493:(outdent) "Learned"? (Them's fightin' words. :-)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured list removal candidates
47:. No further edits should be made to this page.
94:people don't know their HIV-positive status.
677:No further edits should be made to this page.
128:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons
45:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates
33:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
74:Contacted Garion96, Orlady and Trezatium.
249:PS Is there a list of people with Hep-C?
507:Understanding the new UNAIDS estimates
308:highest level, at around 33.2 million
7:
440:. UNAIDS have chosen to give three
28:
35:featured list removal nomination
268:List of people with hepatitis C
1:
444:; why assume we know better?
497:I faced the same problem in
646:- but what it has is enough
85:Utterly fails Criterion 3:
69:List of HIV-positive people
22:List of HIV-positive people
694:
674:Please do not modify it.
664:20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
636:21:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
601:00:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
585:11:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
563:13:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
543:15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
466:13:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
454:13:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
432:12:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
409:11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
393:10:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
381:10:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
365:10:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
353:09:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
340:09:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
283:08:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
263:02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
234:18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
198:12:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
183:17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
170:17:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
146:16:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
117:15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
40:Please do not modify it.
310:
305:
519:in recorded history.
60:23:54, 19 June 2008
442:significant figures
371:confidence interval
58:User:Matthewedwards
499:AIDS #Epidemiology
136:Pornographic actor
87:Comprehensiveness.
661:
685:
676:
662:
657:
560:
555:
429:
424:
369:That range is a
337:
332:
260:
255:
167:
162:
114:
109:
42:
693:
692:
688:
687:
686:
684:
683:
682:
681:
672:
647:
558:
551:
427:
420:
335:
328:
258:
251:
165:
158:
156:they selected?
112:
105:
72:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
691:
689:
680:
679:
667:
666:
653:
639:
638:
620:
616:
615:
604:
603:
590:
589:
588:
587:
566:
565:
532:
531:
524:
520:
516:
513:
510:
509:, reference 4.
503:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
397:You could ask
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
247:
223:
214:
213:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
132:
131:
91:
90:
71:
66:
65:
50:
49:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
690:
678:
675:
669:
668:
665:
660:
655:
654:
651:
644:
641:
640:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
618:
617:
613:
609:
606:
605:
602:
599:
595:
592:
591:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
569:
568:
567:
564:
561:
556:
554:
547:
546:
545:
544:
540:
536:
529:
525:
523:perspective).
521:
517:
514:
511:
508:
504:
500:
496:
495:
494:
467:
464:
461:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:
433:
430:
425:
423:
416:
412:
411:
410:
407:
404:
400:
396:
395:
394:
391:
388:
384:
383:
382:
379:
376:
372:
368:
367:
366:
363:
360:
356:
355:
354:
351:
348:
343:
342:
341:
338:
333:
331:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
309:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
286:
285:
284:
281:
278:
273:
269:
266:
265:
264:
261:
256:
254:
248:
245:
241:
237:
236:
235:
232:
229:
224:
221:
216:
215:
210:
207:
206:
199:
195:
191:
186:
185:
184:
181:
178:
173:
172:
171:
168:
163:
161:
155:
150:
149:
148:
147:
144:
141:
137:
129:
124:
121:
120:
119:
118:
115:
110:
108:
101:
98:
95:
88:
84:
80:
77:
76:
75:
70:
67:
64:
62:
59:
55:
52:The list was
48:
46:
41:
36:
31:
30:
23:
19:
673:
670:
650:
642:
624:Gugu Dlamini
607:
593:
552:
533:
492:
421:
414:
329:
306:
252:
243:
239:
208:
159:
153:
133:
122:
106:
102:
99:
96:
92:
86:
82:
78:
73:
53:
51:
39:
32:
612:Terry Dolan
528:this change
418:million".
535:Eubulides
446:Trezatium
399:Eubulides
190:Trezatium
652:Dendodge
598:GreenJoe
387:Garion96
359:Garion96
177:Garion96
140:Garion96
20: |
577:indopug
526:I made
272:WP:NAME
648:......
628:Orlady
559:(talk)
428:(talk)
390:(talk)
362:(talk)
336:(talk)
259:(talk)
220:WP:BLP
180:(talk)
166:(talk)
143:(talk)
113:(talk)
643:Keep:
608:Keep.
460:Colin
403:Colin
375:Colin
347:Colin
277:Colin
246:know.
240:known
228:Colin
16:<
659:Talk
632:talk
594:Keep
581:talk
573:WP:N
553:TONY
539:talk
450:talk
438:here
422:TONY
330:TONY
253:TONY
209:Keep
194:talk
160:TONY
154:were
123:Keep
107:TONY
79:Keep
54:kept
656:..
415:can
244:not
56:by
634:)
583:)
541:)
452:)
196:)
63:.
37:.
630:(
579:(
537:(
462:°
448:(
405:°
377:°
349:°
279:°
230:°
222:.
192:(
81:—
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.