Category talk:Deaths from AIDS-related illness

comments

Category is offensively worded. Should be "people with AIDS" or similar.

It's meant to be "People who have died and AIDS was a contributory factor". I'm amazed that anyone could find this offensive, but please continue in the Discussion page.

The term "AIDS victim" is deprecated among every group that deals with people with AIDS. See any AIDS media guide or style sheet., like this Word doc or this online document - Nunh-huh 28 June 2005 09:27 (UTC)

---

I had seen the online link Nunh-huh quotes. This is the relevant passage:

USE: PERSON WITH HIV OR PERSON LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS OR PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS (PLWHA)

DON'T USE: AIDS VICTIM OR SUFFERER

Many PLWHA feel these terms imply they are powerless, with no control over their lives.

I was not using it to mean living people. Is it offensive to use it for those who have died? RachelBrown 28 June 2005 15:04 (UTC)

While the dead don't write style guides, I'm not sure that should empower us to refer to them in terms that have been labelled offensive. In any case, since this category includes List of HIV-positive people, it also includes living people. Why not [[Category:HIV positive people]]? Or, as I think was more the intention, why not remove the living and use [[Category:People who died of AIDS]] or [[Category:Dead people who had AIDS]] or [[Category:Dead people who were HIV positive]]? (which are not synonymous). - Nunh-huh 29 June 2005 01:50 (UTC)

---

My point was that the style guide only seemed to object to using AIDS victim as a synonym for person with HIV or living with HIV/AIDS, which isn't what I meant the category to cover. But I certainly have no wish to hide behind a quibble, or to offend anyone. I'm putting a line on the main page to explain exactly what I intended this category to cover. I don't know what's entailed in renaming a category, but if anyone can come up with a snappy title that means what I intend, they can rename with my blessing. RachelBrown 29 June 2005 14:31 (UTC)

Honestly, this is just amazing. We refer to

• Holocaust victims
• drowning victims
• September 11th Victims
• tuberculosis victims
• victims of torture
• and many more.

I understand the person with HIV/AIDS wanting to not be called a victim, regardless of how technically correct the term might be, and I respect that. After all, when you have a disease that can be / is fatal, you want to be reminded of that as little as possible. Hope is an important part of any potentially terminal patient's arsenal.

But there can be no doubt that someone who has died as a result of AIDS is a victim in the classic sense, and they should be held in the same regard as vitims of any other large-scale epidemic, no? Let us not PC these victims of a tragic disease into some linguistic cul de sac.

-Harmil 29 June 2005 18:14 (UTC)

Apparently you think that avoiding offensive terminology is a bad thing. "AIDS victims" is offensive terminology. That Harmil doesn't think so, or doesn't care, or has a bug up an orifice about being "PC" isn't dispositive. My experience is that most poeple don't like being labeled "victims", and people with AIDS have speicfically stated this repeatedly. Unlike Harmil, I don't think it's "OK" to ignore this. If this is a category of "People who have died of AIDS" let it be called such instead of something stigmifying. Perhaps Harmil feels there's something about people with AIDS that makes it all right to disregard their opinion on the matter? - Nunh-huh 29 June 2005 19:12 (UTC)

Category name is absolutely unacceptable. Has been nominated for either deletion or renaming, with the proviso that I don't care which of those two happens as long as this doesn't stay as is. The bottom line is that even if you agree with Harmil's concern above about PC language (which I don't), using "AIDS victims" is a sure way to piss a fuck of a lot of Wikipedia readers off, while renaming it inconveniences nobody. I also want to note that despite the assurance above that the category is intended for people who've died, I've already had to remove one person (Greg Louganis) who is still alive. Bearcat 08:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I really never intended to stir up a hornets' nest. I believe that this category has some use and should be retained, but if anyone can think of a better name, please go ahead and rename. And if anyone puts in someone still alive, that can be fixed like ny other incorrect statement. I can say that after the last round of discussion on this, I got some private messages disagreeing with the opponents of this category, so not everyone is in agreement. RachelBrown 21:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a case where certain opinions have to be privileged over others; if the category name is offensive to the people who are most affected by it, that automatically takes primacy over people who don't see a problem even if the latter group are technically in the majority. A category can never be named with terms that are offensive to the people directly affected by the category. I'm not actually opposed to keeping a PWAs category or two, but I just can't allow the name to stand as is. As for the living people, my only concern is that it requires careful monitoring; it can't just be something that only occurs if and when people happen to notice that someone's been filed inappropriately. Bearcat 19:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what the point is of this remark. I've said repeatedly that I'm happy to see this renamed. And changes are made all the time to Wikipedia that may well be at least as offensive to some people as the name of this category. I have myself corrected an amendment to the List of Jews that listed Adolf Hitler as a Jewish actor. That would obviously be profoundly offensive to many people, and was corrected when I happened to notice that Hitler had been filed inappropriately. Incidentally, just after that amendment was made, the entire article was wiped and the person who made the amendment then restored it. A cynic might regard this as a deliberate attempt by that person to cover up what s/he had done. RachelBrown 16:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand that you accept a rename, and wasn't pointing this comment at you. I was simply clarifying that your comment above that not everybody agrees on the inappropriateness of "victims" isn't really relevant to the matter. Bearcat 17:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Suffering?

I find this very weird. I don't think I know any HIV positive people. However, I do know people with crippling arthritis, and I have lost close friends and relatives to cancer. These poor people suffer or suffered all right, and they would be terribly insulted if anyone suggested they didn't. But that doesn't mean that they felt like helpless victims. Why is HIV so different from other diseases? 194.200.241.36 29 June 2005 17:51 (UTC)

I think the people that you know would find the category "Arthritis victims" peculiar, as they would find a category "People with crippling arthritis". We don't need emotive words in our classification system. We shouldn't have "cancer victims" as a classification either. Perhaps you should make the acquaintance of some HIV positive people. They would certainly make you aware that they do not want to be referred to as victims... and in that respect, HIV is like every other disease, not different. - Nunh-huh 1 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

I am bewildered by this; it bears no relation to what I said. I was referring to people suffering from diseases. Yes, they would have no objection to being called "arthritis sufferers" or "cancer sufferers". On the contrary, they would strongly object to the suggestion that they aren't suffering. My question is why HIV or AIDS is so different from cancer that you cannot be described as an HIV sufferer or AIDS sufferer. I specifically said "that doesn't mean that they felt like helpless victims"; I never used the expression "cancer victims". Perhaps Nunh-huh could clarify why he/she distorted my contribution. Happy to meet HIV positive people; how do I find them? 194.200.241.36 1 July 2005 09:50 (UTC)

Advertise? Sorry that you feel I "distorted" your comment: if my comment doesn't reflect what you meant to say, the more likely explanation is that I misunderstood it. Perhaps you can restate it, if you think it's still pertinent. I understood the subject under discussion to be "what category should be used for people who died from, or died having, AIDS". The dead can hardly be said to be "sufferers". Are you advocating the category "AIDS sufferers"? I rather think that too redolent of "the heartbreak of psoriasis". - Nunh-huh 1 July 2005 10:07 (UTC)

Advertise? "I'd like to meet some people with AIDS to chat about their attitudes to whether they feel they're suffering"? How grossly insulting to them! If you'd read my previous contribution, you'd see that I did restate my position. If you still cannot understand it, I'm very sorry but I have no time to waste stating it yet again. This section is entitled "Suffering", and that's what it's about. The point I wished to address, which had already been raised (it wasn't my idea), was that people with HIV or AIDS shouldn't be regarded as sufferers. Sorry if it's not what you want to talk about. There's no point in a category "AIDS sufferers", as there's already a list of people with HIV. And yes, psoriasis can be a terrible thing, and I for one would no more make fun of it than I would of HIV. I hope that this concludes this exchange, because I shall say no more. 194.200.241.36 1 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)

If that's the way you want it. I'm sorry I was so obtuse as to be unable to understand your point. - Nunh-huh 1 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)

Victim Defined and other ideas...

For what it's worth, Websters online says:

Victim n.

1. One who is harmed or killed by another: a victim of a mugging.
2. A living creature slain and offered as a sacrifice during a religious rite.
3. One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
4. A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming.
5. A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.

I doubt any of those definitions fit any that are being debated, at best, maybe #4 and that's not always true (transfusions, births, rapes, etc.). As for what to rename the category, People with AIDS or People with HIV. I would vote for "People with HIV". As it doesn't carry the same image as AIDS. I know many people with HIV, but there isn't any visual sign of illness, which most associate with AIDS.

Please, please, please, note, I am not looking for an argument or debate (lord that's a lead-in), so let me try to keep my POV out, and facts in (most are on the linked pages)... HIV and AIDS are different (medically speaking). HIV is a retrovirus that is widely believed to be the cause of AIDS, which is a weakened immune system. Since AIDS is not tangible (or, in this case, visible via microscope), one dies of what has been termed "AIDS related illnesses" (that a person with a normal immune system most likely would be able to survive).

All ideas to keep in mind when searching for a new name for the category. I hope this helped, lord knows, this topic needs a compassionate approach, but without loss of factual data. - …Guy M… ^(soapbox) 10:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed, although I'd raise the question: would we want the category to (a) be repurposed to include everybody with a Wikipedia article who ever tested positive for HIV, or (b) stay as originally intended, referring specifically to those who've died? Although I'm not opposed to (a), if that's the consensus, I can see a lot of potential problems with it -- for one thing, it'll require regular monitoring for abuse/vandalism. (Oh, and your renaming suggestion is fine if we go with (a), but it doesn't work if the category's original intention is maintained.) Bearcat 13:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

A proposal to rename

Since there was no consensus on the proposal to delete, which resulted in a default keep, I propose that we rename this category as Category:People who died from AIDS. Exploding Boy 20:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've gone with Category:AIDS-related deaths, because when you get really technical about it, AIDS isn't really ever the cause of death in and of itself. People with AIDS die of cancers or pneumonias or other illnesses that they were dealing with because of the damage AIDS has done to their immune system, but HIV itself isn't the actual cause of death. It may seem like splitting hairs to some, but it's more accurate. Bearcat 17:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov

Why is "Isaac Asimov" listed as a subcategory?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishyfred (talk • contribs)