HIV has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 18, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 23, 2005 Good article nominee Listed July 10, 2006 Peer review Reviewed September 26, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 19, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 4, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 5, 2025. Current status: Good article

Template:WP1.0

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Viruses Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Reproductive High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Microbiology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International development High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International developmentWikipedia:WikiProject International developmentTemplate:WikiProject International developmentInternational development High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

To whomever it may concern,

I am a student in a Neuropsychology course at Boston University. My professor has previously contacted the administrators of this page to attain permission to add a section. We would truly appreciate if you would review and add the section we would like to contribute. Please let us know what changes are necessary.

Thank you so much.

There used to be a chart showing the rates of infection per 10,000 exposures - i.e. receptive vaginal intercourse, insertive anal intercourse, etc. Why was it removed? I think it is important to show that the risk of infection is much higher in receptive anal intercourse than receptive vaginal intercourse; as well as many different activities that are susceptible to HIV infection. A link to this information can be found at: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html

We seem to go round this loop from time to time. You can find the last discussion of this here, where the consensus was that a table with this data wouldbe good, but we all had some reservations about whether the underlying studies had been adequately evaluated by our editors as representing the most current and most reliable of the available reliable sources. There is a version of the table currently in the HIV/AIDS article, and we could begin by bringing that across. But the CDC one does appear generally to be cited to more recent sources, so i would favour inserting those rate figures (they don't cover every item in the WP table, though). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest not to copy the chart here. The idea is that the scope of this article is the biology/science of the virus while HIV/AIDS covers the disease (see the line of explanation on top of both articles). The transmission risks for various sex practices, needle sharing etc. clearly belong in the other article. Chakalacka (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It is about the transmission of the virus, not the disease. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline chart is misleading as many cases develop much faster than latency referenced in chart under diagnosis. Thus persons who may rely on this chart may have much shorter time frame to seek medical attention. Further the chart may also be incorrect latest versions of hiv are known to develop much faster. Documentation that some persons are fast developers also may be misled on time frame by this chart.

50.161.117.90 (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I believe that there needs to be a section regarding the evolution of HIV in the article -- much of the information could be rerouted into a new subsection regarding evolution of the virus. I propose the following three changes

1) Discuss genetic variability in new "Evolution' section 2) Discuss the transmission of HIV to humans with more details about the animal-to-human crossing 3) Usage of the divergent lineages used in HIV-1 strains to affect man to determine evolution.

Khawaja.6 (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking this up on google and it showed me several images and articles about HIV rash, but the article doesn't seem to have any pictures of it, could we add one? 108.31.5.107 (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)bannabill[reply]

Hmm, I had a look on Wikimedia Commons. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a suitable picture there. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]