This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kimiko, you recently edited the page so that all "ACT UP"s read "ACT-UP", which I've seen to be the most common spelling (in the news and such), but the ACT UP/New York site does not use this spelling. What do we do?- Hyacinth 20:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think the following paragraph should just be deleted, because it's obvious and to the extent that it's not obvious it's unencyclopedic. Please reinsert with explanation if you disagree.
Aroundthewayboy 15:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
So, I just added "Stop the Church" under actions - I think this is an appropriate place for it b/c it was a major action taken by the organization. Now, though, there's duplicate info in this new section and "Criticisms and controversy". Perhaps, the best bet is to merge info from the Criticisms section into the Stop the Church section and add new, more inclusive text to the Criticisms section, as that section currently really only speaks of criticism of the one action. What do ya think? Zue Jay ( talk) 20:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The criticism section mentions ACT-UP saying something about some protest with a wafer, yet none is mentioned. 72.93.215.79 ( talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I am confused as to why we do not have an established section of this article that gives some background knowledge on Larry Kramer's creation of and later involvement with ACT UP instead of just a small portion in the introduction. Cwarner-haag ( talk) 03:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Lifesitenews qualifies as a reliable source, and I can find no other source for the claim that activists threw used condoms at the altar. Plus, it's a throw-away line in an unrelated article almost twenty years later, so I’ve taken that out and replaced it. -- Irn ( talk) 04:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 00:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There are published studies of longevity improving drugs. Deprenyl, metformin, resveratrol, rapamycin There are also a number of popular articles on longevity science at Scientific American.
What is the right way to suggest to the Treatment Action Group that all hiv persons should be prescribed a longevizing drug as a standard part of their treatment. The "psychology" of this is that if hiv changes lifespan a longevity drug restores full lifespan as a kind of treatment right.
Some longevity drugs that have been published as effective at two or more mammal species. The medical rationale to prescribe experimental drugs that are unapproved is they they may save a persons life. The many years of life saved per person on a longevity drug then may have similar "quantity of life years gained" that goes with a person being cured of cancer, justifying the prescription of only partially researched preFDA longevity compounds to hiv patients.
further, the voluntary use of longevity drugs among hiv persons screens these drugs to benefit everybody.
from a wikipedia perspective the Treatment Action Group should have an online link to treatmentactiongroup.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.120.163 ( talk) 21:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill protest.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
I've redirected the Stop the Church article here for now. This isn't meant to be a vote against having it, just that it's not big enough at the moment to be worth bothering. The version I redirected, and some previous versions, have a few minor bits in them that are unsourced but perhaps worth looking into at some point, but for now I think it's more productive just to look for new sources directly. Wnt ( talk) 16:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 16:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power → ACT UP – Act up/ ACT UP already redirect here and most sources refer to the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power almost exclusively as ACT UP, sometimes not even mentioning the backronym. Individual chapters are named ACT UP/x, making it the WP:COMMONNAME. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 21:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Gobōnobo + c 13:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I just removed the following sourced text, added by another editor:
It was not on-topic in the section "Structure of ACT-UP". I'm also skeptical about including a citation like this: why source to what seems to be essentially an attack piece rather than to the original Blade op-ed (which unfortunately I can't find online)? Also, does anyone happen to know if Linacre Quarterly is a WP:RS? (I've not heard of it before, and I was curious whether it's been discussed anywhere.) -- JBL ( talk) 21:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
ACT UP. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on ACT UP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
In a paragraph, it is said that ACTUP was "organized as a leaderless and effectively anarchist network." This is not true and it contradicts the next paragraph which says "Leadership changed hands frequently and suddenly", so I have added a citation needed tag. 184.8.99.138 ( talk) 09:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Joel B. Lewis: As tiresome as this may be, two successive reverts calls for talk page discussion, before we get to WP:3RR. The revert in question is this. I changed the lede sentence from "an international direct action advocacy group working to impact..." to "an interest group that describes itself as taking direct action to impact...". My reason is severalfold. First, direct action is a method, not a type of group, so it makes no sense to describe the organization as such; one could say, e.g. "a group that engages in direct action." Second, the language of the lede is a paraphrase of the language of the organization, and its sole reference is to ACT UP's own website. This constitutes WP:PEACOCK and is precisely why we have the template {{ Cherry-picked}}. Can you please provide your explanation for why these issues I've identified are not the case? Ergo Sum 19:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
3O Response: I Googled "direct action advocacy group" and about 75% of the first 50 hits were related to the subject (ACT UP), which makes it seem a bit like branding. I personally find it a little ambiguous, whether they are advocating that people take direct action or they advocate through direct action, though this may be a subtle difference. As an alternative, how about: is an international advocacy group working to impact the lives of
people with AIDS
and so on. Would that be an acceptable compromise? –
Reidgreg (
talk) 21:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(PWAs) and the
AIDS pandemic, encouraging
direct action to bring about
is an international advocacy group which takes direct action to impact the lives of people with AIDS and the AIDS pandemicYou should be able to find RSS in a Google News search of "act up" "direct action". Here: NPR, The Advocate, Boston Review, I'm sure there are better ones out there but that's a quick look, afraid I don't have time to be thorough. – Reidgreg ( talk) 21:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: PWA / "People with AIDS" is an incredibly common initialism from the time frame of ACT UP, and in all the relevant documentation in the '80s and on. There is nothing controversial about its inclusion, and it is easily sourced by any number of sources that are already in the article. ACT UP has historically provided the space for organizing direct action, as well as produced resources to enable others to form their own direct-action groups, so both descriptions apply. The groups Queer Nation, Lesbian Avengers, and others that do not have WP articles but were active in that era, all were formed by people who came out of ACT UP and its interrelated groups. How well-documented this is, I'm not sure. For some of it we have to rely on internal documents and zines, but some of these materials are archived at library collections. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@ CorbieVreccan: This edit was really problematic. It suggests that ACT UP engages in "legislation, medical research, treatment and advocacy, and changing public policies", but this is untrue, since ACT UP does not write legislation, perform medical research, or render treatment. (The not-wrong terms are also kind of redundant -- "advocacy" is just a catch-all term that adds nothing when one is already explaining in detail the nature of the advocacy.) I am inclined just to move it back to how it was before, but other suggestions would be good, too. -- JBL ( talk) 11:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kimiko, you recently edited the page so that all "ACT UP"s read "ACT-UP", which I've seen to be the most common spelling (in the news and such), but the ACT UP/New York site does not use this spelling. What do we do?- Hyacinth 20:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think the following paragraph should just be deleted, because it's obvious and to the extent that it's not obvious it's unencyclopedic. Please reinsert with explanation if you disagree.
Aroundthewayboy 15:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
So, I just added "Stop the Church" under actions - I think this is an appropriate place for it b/c it was a major action taken by the organization. Now, though, there's duplicate info in this new section and "Criticisms and controversy". Perhaps, the best bet is to merge info from the Criticisms section into the Stop the Church section and add new, more inclusive text to the Criticisms section, as that section currently really only speaks of criticism of the one action. What do ya think? Zue Jay ( talk) 20:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The criticism section mentions ACT-UP saying something about some protest with a wafer, yet none is mentioned. 72.93.215.79 ( talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I am confused as to why we do not have an established section of this article that gives some background knowledge on Larry Kramer's creation of and later involvement with ACT UP instead of just a small portion in the introduction. Cwarner-haag ( talk) 03:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Lifesitenews qualifies as a reliable source, and I can find no other source for the claim that activists threw used condoms at the altar. Plus, it's a throw-away line in an unrelated article almost twenty years later, so I’ve taken that out and replaced it. -- Irn ( talk) 04:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 00:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There are published studies of longevity improving drugs. Deprenyl, metformin, resveratrol, rapamycin There are also a number of popular articles on longevity science at Scientific American.
What is the right way to suggest to the Treatment Action Group that all hiv persons should be prescribed a longevizing drug as a standard part of their treatment. The "psychology" of this is that if hiv changes lifespan a longevity drug restores full lifespan as a kind of treatment right.
Some longevity drugs that have been published as effective at two or more mammal species. The medical rationale to prescribe experimental drugs that are unapproved is they they may save a persons life. The many years of life saved per person on a longevity drug then may have similar "quantity of life years gained" that goes with a person being cured of cancer, justifying the prescription of only partially researched preFDA longevity compounds to hiv patients.
further, the voluntary use of longevity drugs among hiv persons screens these drugs to benefit everybody.
from a wikipedia perspective the Treatment Action Group should have an online link to treatmentactiongroup.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.120.163 ( talk) 21:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill protest.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
I've redirected the Stop the Church article here for now. This isn't meant to be a vote against having it, just that it's not big enough at the moment to be worth bothering. The version I redirected, and some previous versions, have a few minor bits in them that are unsourced but perhaps worth looking into at some point, but for now I think it's more productive just to look for new sources directly. Wnt ( talk) 16:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 16:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power → ACT UP – Act up/ ACT UP already redirect here and most sources refer to the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power almost exclusively as ACT UP, sometimes not even mentioning the backronym. Individual chapters are named ACT UP/x, making it the WP:COMMONNAME. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 21:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Gobōnobo + c 13:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I just removed the following sourced text, added by another editor:
It was not on-topic in the section "Structure of ACT-UP". I'm also skeptical about including a citation like this: why source to what seems to be essentially an attack piece rather than to the original Blade op-ed (which unfortunately I can't find online)? Also, does anyone happen to know if Linacre Quarterly is a WP:RS? (I've not heard of it before, and I was curious whether it's been discussed anywhere.) -- JBL ( talk) 21:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
ACT UP. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on ACT UP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
In a paragraph, it is said that ACTUP was "organized as a leaderless and effectively anarchist network." This is not true and it contradicts the next paragraph which says "Leadership changed hands frequently and suddenly", so I have added a citation needed tag. 184.8.99.138 ( talk) 09:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Joel B. Lewis: As tiresome as this may be, two successive reverts calls for talk page discussion, before we get to WP:3RR. The revert in question is this. I changed the lede sentence from "an international direct action advocacy group working to impact..." to "an interest group that describes itself as taking direct action to impact...". My reason is severalfold. First, direct action is a method, not a type of group, so it makes no sense to describe the organization as such; one could say, e.g. "a group that engages in direct action." Second, the language of the lede is a paraphrase of the language of the organization, and its sole reference is to ACT UP's own website. This constitutes WP:PEACOCK and is precisely why we have the template {{ Cherry-picked}}. Can you please provide your explanation for why these issues I've identified are not the case? Ergo Sum 19:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
3O Response: I Googled "direct action advocacy group" and about 75% of the first 50 hits were related to the subject (ACT UP), which makes it seem a bit like branding. I personally find it a little ambiguous, whether they are advocating that people take direct action or they advocate through direct action, though this may be a subtle difference. As an alternative, how about: is an international advocacy group working to impact the lives of
people with AIDS
and so on. Would that be an acceptable compromise? –
Reidgreg (
talk) 21:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(PWAs) and the
AIDS pandemic, encouraging
direct action to bring about
is an international advocacy group which takes direct action to impact the lives of people with AIDS and the AIDS pandemicYou should be able to find RSS in a Google News search of "act up" "direct action". Here: NPR, The Advocate, Boston Review, I'm sure there are better ones out there but that's a quick look, afraid I don't have time to be thorough. – Reidgreg ( talk) 21:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: PWA / "People with AIDS" is an incredibly common initialism from the time frame of ACT UP, and in all the relevant documentation in the '80s and on. There is nothing controversial about its inclusion, and it is easily sourced by any number of sources that are already in the article. ACT UP has historically provided the space for organizing direct action, as well as produced resources to enable others to form their own direct-action groups, so both descriptions apply. The groups Queer Nation, Lesbian Avengers, and others that do not have WP articles but were active in that era, all were formed by people who came out of ACT UP and its interrelated groups. How well-documented this is, I'm not sure. For some of it we have to rely on internal documents and zines, but some of these materials are archived at library collections. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@ CorbieVreccan: This edit was really problematic. It suggests that ACT UP engages in "legislation, medical research, treatment and advocacy, and changing public policies", but this is untrue, since ACT UP does not write legislation, perform medical research, or render treatment. (The not-wrong terms are also kind of redundant -- "advocacy" is just a catch-all term that adds nothing when one is already explaining in detail the nature of the advocacy.) I am inclined just to move it back to how it was before, but other suggestions would be good, too. -- JBL ( talk) 11:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)