Talk:Bugchasing/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 01:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will have the review soon. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 01:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General

• I found an article published by The Daily Nebraskan which talks about a woman who wanted to contract HIV deliberately. It is most probably an idiosyncrasy but worth mentioning in the article.
  • This is fringe; it's written in a student publication in 2007. (No hate; that's my alma mater.) No recent literature notes that women can be bugchasers, and most (García-Iglesias writes prolifically) note it's solely a male phenomenon. Don't think this is fit.
• Since this practice is a social phenomena, rare at that, it is appropriate to have a cultural depictions section — Not as detailed as it was previously, but the article cannot satisfy the "broad in its coverage" good article criteria without a section to it. When I say this, I am only talking about songs, episodes, films, and documentaries on the topic, and not the details about the media article, which has already been covered.
  • Are you asking me to re-add anything there? There are only two things I was able to verify by secondary sources. I found others, though. Let me know if you think the final paragraph of that section is a BLP crime issue or not; only one set of convictions was quashed, the other gets to stand.

I don't believe that is a BLP crime issue, since he was convicted, and later a part of it was overturned. It would probably make it better if it can be mentioned which court convicted him and which overturned a part of it though. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Avoid using "subset" — I have elaborated on it down below.
  • done
• The lead focuses a bit too much on contents from the "Motivation and activity" section, and too little on the "Group dynamics" and "History" sections.
  • fix, I think

Motivation and activity

• "there are four common strands of motivation in the literature." — A more specific term than just "literature" would work better, as "literature" can stand for a wide range of publication areas.
  • Maybe better. I use "literature" pretty often in conversation so this is a nice perspective. "Academic writing" is more specific, do you think?
• "remains an unclear or imprecise explanation for bugchasing behavior." — Is it unclear because bugchasers have not said so or because it is just a hypothesis? It might be useful to clarify why this remains unclear.
  • Gauthier and Forsyth merely state that suicidality can be a component.
  • Tomso responds to this quote by saying it's unreasoned, "They are willing to commit what is, in essence, suicide in order to maintain their membership in the group", and then says that even if we understand bugchasing through psychoanalysis (death drive), "there is still reason to be suspicious of the particular linking of barebacking and bug chasing with a desire for death" - then mentions suicide explicitly when explaining what he means here by "death" (suicide and homicide). No elaboration so there's nothing more to say, I feel.
• "personal identification with bugchasing is rare, and bugchasing behavior is rarer still" — I am not sure if I completely understand this. Does this imply that there are more people who identify as bugchasers than people who actually practice it? If so, why do people identify with that when they would not actively practice it?
  • Not apparent in the literature. My conjecture is the fetish explanation of bugchasing identity; lots of people have fetishes, few act on them.
• Mention the year in which the quote was said.
  • done

Group dynamics

• Link — "barebacking", "AIDS epidemic" (to Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS)
  • done
• "bugchasing is a subset of the barebacking subculture, with the main difference between the two being intent: most barebackers have no intent in transmitting or being infected with HIV, which is the focus of bugchasing behavior." — At first, this came off as paradoxical to me. How could A be considered a "subset" of B, if the motivations for A are completely different from B? This line from the source provides clarity: "Bug chasers were authenticated as an observable subculture of barebackers where most reported apathy to the serostatus of their partner or an active want of a serodiscordant partner, and a preference towards practicing unprotected anal intercourse." In my understanding, this study shows that most barebackers who could be subclassified as bugchasers expressed apathy towards the HIV status of their partner or were actively seeking a serodiscordant partner, compared to it solely being the "focus" of their behavior (as implied in the Wikipedia article). I believe that the difference is subtle, but important and perhaps it should be clarified in the article. That is, the point about "apathy" should be incorporated in the text. Also, "subset" would be the wrong term to use because of the paradox I mentioned earlier — "bugchasing has been observed as a subculture of barebacking" or something similar would be more accurate.
  • The source says, "The salient feature of Mansergh and colleagues’ (2002) definition is the concept of intention; and it is this intention that differentiates the two groups into culture, and subculture. The purported intention of the bug chaser is to become infected with HIV; barebackers do not share this same goal (Tewksbury 2003, Schwartz and Bailey 2005)."
  • Apathy is only mentioned in the results and, unlike García-Iglesias's ethnography, this seems to veer into psychological conclusions and hence
    WP:MEDRS
    . What do you think?

If that is something which has been derived based off findings, instead of using specific study models that found the specific result of "apathy", it is best to leave it as it is then. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I will change to subculture, though, as noted above
• "human immunodeficiency virus" — use HIV, as it has been used previously.
  • done
• "that is described as both "queer world-making and world-shattering"." — Quotations should have attribution in the prose. Write it as "described by profession+full name as both..."
  • done
• "as typically three months pass before a person is diagnosed with either condition." — It is not that common for three months to pass before a pregnancy is detected (I say this from my
  experience
  , but I can provide sources if required), neither is pregnancy considered a "condition" in practical terms (although it could be classified as such). I understand what the sentence is trying to say, and it makes sense. But it will need to be rewritten a little. Something along the lines of "But perhaps even more to the point of the metaphor, the physical characteristics of HIV infection are similar to pregnancy, as typically some time passes before either diagnosis could be established." would work.
  • there's no harm in changing it. only included because that is what García-Iglesias writes ("Further emphasis can be made if we consider that, very much like heterosexual pregnancy, HIV infection implies a latency period (‘window period’) of generally three months between exposure and diagnosis") - but he's not a doctor or in tune with medical literature
• "was upset because of damage it caused" — Implies that damage was done, and from what I have found online, Human Rights Campaign called the article "irresponsible" and disputed its numbers. Writing that they were upset specifically because the Rolling Stone article damaged "homonormative political ambitions" borders on speculation. I would suggest you drop the "political ambitions" bit, and elaborate more on what it was that they did not like about it specifically.
  • the source doesn't say damage, the vibe is more like not in line with, so I will change it. As for it being speculation or not, this seems to be Greteman's conclusion, so I will attribute it to him

It reads much better now. Good job!

• The quote box works better if it begins by the side of the third paragraph instead of the second because of their similar contents.
  • done

History

• "more recently" — This is time variable, so it should be substituted with something more specific that identifies a particular time period.
  • the source is imprecise IIRC; I put closer to 2000s but let me know if there's a better way
• "a few years prior" — Better to mention the specific year instead.
  • done

References

• "NORMA" → "Norma".
  • done
• Title case for "HIV and gay men: clinical, social and psychological aspects."
  • done

See also

• This section should come before "Notes", at the end of the prose, not at the end of the article.

The article is well researched and written intricately. It is not too far off from meeting the criteria, and it should pass. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Comfortable Chair, thanks a lot. I've left some comments above and done most of your recommendations. There are a couple areas I disagree with or need some feedback on. I appreciate you volunteering your time about this underresearched but important topic. Urve (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your diligent effort, Urve. While most reviewers do not approve of using em dashes that much, I absolutely love how you have incorporated it in the article — if you have not noticed, I love using it. I will pass the article once you add names of those courts. Great work on this. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Comfortable Chair, thank you! (And you can tell I also love em dashes. I learn a lot from watching EEng from afar...) I have added the court of appeal, but I am unable to find the original court. I imagine it's just a generic Ottawa trial court but cannot find any sources for that. Side note, the appeals court of Ontario has too generic of a name, lol; quite surprised this was what it actually is. Urve (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the

   list incorporation

   :

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with

   the layout style guideline

   :

   B. All

   reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

   :

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

   edit war

   or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article is written intricately and the prose flows really well — a lot of research and work has gone into writing it. Thank you for all the hard work! — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]