User talk:RWalen

Welcome!

Hello, RWalen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JarrahTree 14:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good english

RWalen your english is subliminal. Vincentje97 (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! RWalen (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carlina gummifera has been accepted

Carlina gummifera, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Spicy (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing and accepting my article :) RWalen (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are unwittingly pushing racist western narrative with respect to PEPFAR

Please read this and I will be changing the history section to reflect the truth from the UN perspective which is actually backed by a myriad of contemporaneous news articles. Literally nothing backs that paragraph you added…NOTHING!

https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/MDG6Report_en.pdf Clam chowdah (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That document you sent me talks very positively of PEPFAR and the impact it's had on global AIDS prevention. You also need to read WP:CIVILITY before baselessly accusing other editors of racism or bias. Multiple other editors have disagreed with you on this issue and you are edit warring to include your unsupported material. I didn't even add the paragraph you're trying to delete, it was added by other editors and represents long-standing consensus. I'd advise you to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this issue and edit other articles in a constructive manner. RWalen (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article states exactly what I wrote. And I my paragraph says nothing negative about PEPFAR which you would know had you read my talk post which I wrote years ago. I will be reinstating my paragraph as it is clearly not original research and it is the reality in 2001 and 2002. That paragraph is clear BS that is lifter verbatim from that article and it cannot be verified from an objective source. Please in the future use the talk page before making edits! Clam chowdah (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 21-23 state exactly what is in my paragraph and shouldn’t take long for you to read—it’s the history of 2000-2002 and Bush was president for 2001-2002. Clam chowdah (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source. We report only what is written in reliable sources, preferably secondary sources. The paragraph you're trying to delete is sourced just fine and as far as I can see gives an accurate overview of the reasons for implementing PEPFAR. It should not be deleted as it gives valid context around PEPFAR. I feel like the History section could be expanded with more historical context though, including perhaps something about the situation around antiretroviral medication and patents. But you're gonna have to come up with something more neutral and better supported by sources than what you're trying to insert, which frames the situation around "breaking Western hegemony" and accuses Bush and Western governments of blocking distribution of medication to afflicted countries based on an improper synthesis of mostly primary sources which don't even actually say that at any point. The interview you linked doesn't say anything remotely close to the sentence it's supposed to be supporting, and that is the problem. RWalen (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don’t understand the fight over patents and how western governments like the American federal government were defending the patents. I’m not sure why you can’t read those 3 pages in that UN report?? It states exactly what I wrote about Cipla and western governments defending the patents of the multinational drug companies.

And that first paragraph can’t be verified and it was added in 2013. I can find real news articles that state Fauci and Tommy Thompson first went to Africa in 2002…wtf does George W Bush reading Roots have anything to do with anything??? I don’t think you are using your critical thinking skills and are using the exact same justifications people use to keep Confederate memorials up in America. Clam chowdah (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is what that first paragraph is…while the UN report gives the proper context.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_savior_narrative_in_film Clam chowdah (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap—this is the editor that added that verbatim quote in history, I can’t believe I was willing to let it stay even with my context?!? I think we can now agree the first paragraph must go. Btw, thanks for replying and for the discourse which other editors haven’t done.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aaascj

Clam chowdah (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the direct quotes from the UN officials that make clear Western governments were protecting patents and thus blocking distribution of HIV medication:

The pharmaceutical industry had a tight grip on government policies and an even tighter grip on prices. And donÕt forget this was also the time when world leaders were negotiating protection of intellectual property rights at the WTO [World Trade Organization]. Any concession could open the floodgates for exceptions. US$ 100 So when Brazil and Thailand started manufacturing generic antiretroviral medicines they did something very smart: they revealed that the pills were relatively low-cost to make. This took the wind out of industry claims, and it opened the door for UNAIDS to start negotiations with companies to bring down prices

Meanwhile, activists were getting creative, too. The Treatment Action Campaign sued the government of South Africa to force the country to make antiretroviral medicines available, and protesters were pushing for changes to patent protection to bring prices down. MICHEL: I cannot give enough credit to AIDS activists. Activists used all avenues available to keep pressure on everyone. The push on WTO to recognize the limits of patent protection in a health crisis led to TRIPS [the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights] flexibilities for compulsory licensing and waivers.“

Clam chowdah (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More on the patents and WTO:

A discussion of ways to overcome this obstacle began at a WTO meeting in Doha, Qatar in November 2001. WTO ministers recognized that countries with insufficient or no pharmaceutical-manufacturing capacities could face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing, and they instructed the Council for TRIPS to find an expeditious solution to this problem before the end of 2002. WTO member nations, however, were unable to agree upon the terms under which poor countries could import generic drugs.

Progress on easing generic-drug importation restrictions was held back primarily by the US, which, under pressure from a strong pharmaceutical lobby, expressed concern about the ability of generics producers to export drugs that the pharmaceutical companies had spent millions of dollars to develop. Sale of AIDS drugs in developed countries is a multimillion-dollar industry for companies such as Abbott Laboratories, Merck and Co., and Roche Holding AG.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC228482/

Clam chowdah (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from the Quartz article I originally linked to which is backed up by multiple articles published in 2001 by the NYTimes which is what “the article” refers to:

According to the article, Cipla was offering to sell the AIDS cocktail for $350 a year per patient, or roughly $1 a day, as compared to Western prices of between $10,000 and $15,000 a year, but was being blocked by the multinational drug makers that held the patents, who were being backed by the Bush administration.

News of Big Pharma’s patent protection efforts in the face of the global pandemic and the Bush administration’s support of them sparked international outrage and stoked street protests from Philadelphia to Pretoria, even accusations of genocide.

https://qz.com/india/1666032/how-indian-pharma-giant-cipla-made-aids-drugs-affordable/amp/

Clam chowdah (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is contemporaneous news account of protests in America, right now the History section states Bush had begun thinking about the crisis in Africa while running for president even though I have found evidence of Bush ever mentioning the crisis in the foreign policy debate with Gore or contemporaneous news accounts:

The message of the coalition of ACT-UP, HealthGAP and Jubilee USA Network and others was simple: Donate the dollars, drop the debt, treat the people, save the lives.

The coalition criticized the $200 million U.S. contribution to the global AIDS fund, arguing that it's too little to make a significant dent in the problem and noting that it is a mere fraction of the $2 billion-plus Annan has requested from the U.S. government and industry. (So far, the only American organizations besides the government that have stepped forward to pledge funds are the Gates Foundation, which is providing $100 million, and Coca-Cola, which says it will use its massive distribution network in Africa to assist the U.N. with its prevention programs.) Activists also demanded that anti-retroviral cocktail treatments be provided to the tens of millions who are already sick with AIDS, and that industrialized nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund immediately forgive debt to the hardest-hit countries so they can instead use their annual debt repayments to purchase the lifesaving drugs.

https://www.salon.com/2001/06/25/aids_11/

Clam chowdah (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More on racism of Bush administration/Condi Rice lies via Jeffrey Sachs via PBS:

You went to see [then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza] Rice … in early 2001. Were you talking about the Global Fund then, and what was her reaction?

I came in to the White House, the first year of the Bush administration. I came in to see Condoleezza Rice, with whom I worked in 1989 when I was advising the new post-Communist Polish government, and she was in the National Security Council. ... I went in 2001 to say, "Here's another chance for a wonderful initiative; we need to help treat people that are dying of AIDS; ... here's a $3 billion-a-year plan," and put it forward.

It was interesting, the reaction. Well, first Condoleezza Rice said, "The president is interested in this." Thank goodness. And "It's interesting to hear you discuss this, but our experts tell us that people can't be treated." And I said: "Well, that's not true. Not only have I seen it with my own eyes, but I'm lucky to have as colleagues some of the world's leading scientists and clinicians in AIDS, and they've all just agreed on the fact that treatment is feasible, and it's even feasible in the clinical conditions you would find in impoverished places." Well, there was lots of philosophical argument -- no, it's only cost-effective to do prevention, and all sorts of misunderstandings. ...

I was utterly shocked, I think, completely stunned, when the newly appointed head of USAID [United States Agency for International Development], Andrew Natsios, then made the most remarkable and chilling set of statements about all of this as he was coming into office. He said: "Well, you can't treat Africans. Africans don't know Western time. They won't know the time to take their medicines." He said: "They may know mornings; they may know noon; they may know night. But they don't know Western time." Hard to fathom, actually, how a senior American official could ever make such a statement. But that was the statement of the USAID agency -- in his early days, admittedly, but absolutely shocking. And I talked to [then-Secretary of State] Colin Powell and others, and of course Secretary Powell said: "I've been to hospitals all over Africa. This statement is not our policy." But it showed how steep the hill was going to be with this administration.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/interviews/sachs.html

Clam chowdah (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t bother trying to add any context to history

Those 3 racist nut jobs from the notice board won’t listen to reason and so I will come back to this edit down the road. You are free to collaborate with me on the Talk page but I wouldn’t attempt to edit that article anytime soon because those 3 editors that got involved are morons and it’s like a Stanford Prison experiment with the power to edit Wikipedia having gone to their heads and they will turn on you. All of this because a JFK conspiracy theorist deleted my edit a year ago and an editor assumed I was the bad actor and so now they are biased against me. Clam chowdah (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]