Talk:Edward Hooper (journalist)

Anti-Semitism?

Re: "He believes in his theory so strongly that he even shows hints of anti-semitism (and ignorance, because Koprowski isn't Jewish) when he claims in an article that Koprowski misled him in interviews in order to avoid exposing what Hooper believes to be true:

'I had been exposed to a combination of Koprowski's charm and chutzpah.'[3]"

Can't Gentiles have chutzpah too? I didn't know they were that deprived.

Weblink

The removal seems justified, however I added the main page of the removed citation ("http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/Hooper04/BM14.html") to bibliography, because it contains a lot of material.

I'm sorry but to accuse a man of anti-semetism because of the single word you mentioned does not stand the test of hatred towards jews. The word "Chutzpah" is comman in the english langauge and is not racist in anyway much less anything derogatory. The definition of the word chutzpah from wikpedia itself is that of

Chutzpah is the quality of audacity, for good or for bad. The word derives from the Hebrew word ḥuṣpâ (חֻצְפָּה), meaning "insolence," "audacity," and "impertinence"; though the modern English usage of the word has taken on a wider spectrum of meaning, having been popularized through vernacular use, film, literature, and television.

I dont see anything anti-semetic about the use of that word in the context you mentioned

Fuller picture and NPOV

Have removed qualifier "so called" from the sentence, "This is the "OPV AIDS hypothesis"".

Removed RStone and Koprowski material as irrelvant to Hooper article. Have presented Hoopers first (that I, in my ignorance, know of) scientific publication on OPV AIDS.

Am asking those with access to journals to flesh out "Currently, additional scientific evidence has led to a rejection of the OPV AIDS hypothesis by the scientific community.[4]" as the current material on Royal Society of London meeting will soon be put into historical context and then may look debatable at best.

edit: Also seeking confirmation on type of pub in Nature ""An African HIV-1 sequence from 1959..." letter?, article? paper?

SmithBlue (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC) SmithBlue (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The "additional scientific evidence" doesn't clearly favour either hypothesis more than the other. Thus I agree that it's wrongly phrased; I rephrased it into a Wikipedia sentence - a statement of fact. Harald88 (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that someone else wants to keep the debated sentence; but it appears that at least one claim of that sentence is the topic of debate, so that it cannot be presented as fact. It looks to me that both the claim that it was scientific evidence that led to those articles and the claim that the "scientific community" (most of which is even unaware of the hypothesis!) rejects the hypothesis are not demonstrated to be factual by the given references. Harald88 (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I found -again- a good example in the French Wikipedia: it simply states that it has never been accepted by the scientific cummunity. That is a verifiable fact: if a theory is accepted by a community, wrtings in favour of it are widespread. It looks to me that adopting that phrasing instead of the disputed sentence will solve the issue. Harald88 (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Atlantic article (2000)

For an measuted article showing popular reporting in 2000 - The Hunt for the Origin of AIDS http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200010/origin-aids/2 SmithBlue (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hooper reviews Tinberg, Halperin and Pepin's books

The Origins of AIDS by Jacques Pepin [C.U.P. 2011] and Tinderbox by Craig Timberg and Daniel Halperin [Penguin USA; 2012] are reviewed by Hooper at http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/225/2/ and http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/226/2/

He seems to continue to see scenarios, alternative to OPV-AIDS, as flawed and presents reasoned arguments, in a sometimes vigorous manner, that highlight these flaws. 124.149.82.184 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This should be about Mr Hooper and not only about one of his books

While this article should be at least largely a biography, funny enough at the moment almost all his biography is missing; his own short biography can be found at his website. I also noticed that the little info about him that there is contained an error: he has a university degree in American Literature and has had multiple jobs, and he specifies that it's a mistake to call him a journalist: "[Moore] was not even right about my being a journalist, though I had been one for three years in the mid-eighties." - http://www.uow.edu.au/~/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/Hooper03/Hooper03Moore.html Harald88 (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I agree with changing the word "journalist" to "writer". But for the rest, your edits are taking the article away from neutrality/accuracy. The OPV-AIDS hypothesis is considered refuted; it has no serious scientific support. You shouldn't use the word "claimed" to try to editorially downgrade facts you disagree with; see WP:WTA. MastCell ^Talk 05:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the phrasing of one sentence, I responded to the discussion higher up on this page, "Fuller picture and NPOV"; we can discuss that further there. But please note that what you suggest is nonsense: the sentence that you deleted doesn't use the word "claimed" to downgrade - to the contrary, it uses the word "reputed" and is perfectly neutral, as this was requested by another editor! And I particularly object to your edit that suggests that according to Hooper's website a conspiracy exists against the hypothesis: I could not find that allegation which is a distortion (great exaggeration) of " "a very substantial cover-up", and the link to conspiracy theories is completely out of line as it misportrays Hooper as a conspiracy theorist. Thus, to say it in your words: you shouldn't use the word "conspiracy" to try to editorially downgrade and distort what people allege (a reminder from the Wikipedia article that was linked: "The word 'conspiracy' works much the same way the word 'cult' does to discredit advocates of a certain view or persuasion"). As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons demands, I "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" that piece of mud but you reinserted it. See also see WP:WTA Harald88 (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional note, in reference to conspiracy theories: we may consider adding the topic of the allegation that the OPV hypothesis of Hamilton and Hooper is a "conspiracy theory", as that allegation has been made and is also discussed by Hooper on his website. Of course, both that allegation and his commentary should then be fairly reported here. Harald88 (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And on a side note: I suddenly notice that the article on the OPV HIV hypothesis is full of the "claim" abuse, exactly in the way that you highlighted here above. Please help to clean that up, and thanks in advance! Harald88 (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear. It's inappropriate to use words like "claim" to artifically undermine a clear scientific consensus. It's entirely appropriate to use words like "claim" to describe claims which have attracted little support, or which are widely viewed as misguided. MastCell ^Talk 21:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

We must be even clearer: I was not referring to scientific issues and you appear to propose to introduce biased phrasing which violates one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia - but that must be discussed on the Talk page of that article.

Mastcell, I notice that sofar you did not contribute to the topic of this discussion, although you replied here. Perhaps you forgot that the disagreed sentence is discussed under the header "Fuller picture and NPOV", a little higher up on this page. Harald88 (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)