Jump to content

Talk:List of HIV-positive people/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Ryan White's Pic

Why is White the first picture? It's offensive that in today's age, we still have to use children and white children who didn't get the disease in any "bad" way to be the first thing to promote the cause.

In the West, HIV/AIDS is a gay male thing. In the developing nations it is a black thing. Straight whites and childrend who get it through blood transfusions are the tiniest group.

So why do we start the article with his pic? Rock Hudson, not White was the first big name with it. How about pushing White's picture lower or eliminating it all together and using a gay male or a black African (male or woman) as the first picture 99.21.160.184 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Laura Sue

Junk removed

what is wrong I saw this page and much useful information had been replaced with rubbish so I reverted it. That's my IP address on the edit; apologies for not logging in first. Feel free to delete this section of the talk page. Naptastic 05:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Naptastic

Feature?

Now that Garion96 has brought it up to scratch, how about nominating this as a featured list? Trezatium 14:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Or at least aiming to do so in the near future. I don't think it's quite there yet, as it's not totally comprehensive, and some of the "Comments" could do with improvement. Trezatium 14:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Not yet. Although it was indeed my plan to do in the near future. :) The comments need to be improved and the intro needs to be expanded. A mention for instance the impact AIDS/HIV had on the arts. Garion96 (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it might be a good idea to mention that HIV has disproportionately affected artists and entertainers, but I've been unable to work out how to integrate such a sentence into the current introduction. Also, such a comment would have to stress that the phenomenon only applies to the USA and some other Western countries, because it's not true globally. Trezatium 20:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's better to leave it as it is. Perhaps that would be more fitting for a seperate article (if someone ever decides to write that). Since this list is not only for the entertainment industry. Garion96 (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Some quick analysis

The list now has 271 entries, compared to 149 on September 29th. Of these, 42 people (15%) are living. The word "American" appears 176 times (two times for every three entries). "British" appears 22 times; "English", 6; "Canadian", 19; "French", 15; and "South African", 12. Trezatium 19:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering this is the English Wikipedia, it's still more of an international list than I thought. Garion96 (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The list is now up to 306 entries, with (approximately) 189 Americans (62%), 25 British/English people (8%), 19 Canadians (6%), 12 South Africans (4%), 10 French people (3%) and 5 Australians (2%). Note that some entries don't specify nationality. Trezatium (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed eight of the nine entries that omitted nationality. That brings the American total to 196 (64%) and the Canadian total to 20 (7%). Trezatium (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced

Regarding the list of unsourced names, I've tried most of them in Google, newspaper online archives (New York Times, Toronto Star, The Times and The Australian), Randy Shilts' And the band played on (index and Amazon full text search), and even a book about the AIDS Quilt. Any alternative suggestions are welcome. Trezatium 14:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Famous"?

Shouldn't this be renamed to List of famous HIV-positive people? -- Jeandré, 2006-10-31t11:45z

That's a reasonable suggestion. However, when we debated the inclusion criteria in the featured list discussion it was decided that "notability" was implicit, "since it is a basic rule on Wikipedia that lists of people cannot include non-notable people", and because it's common sense that no such list would try to include all of the 65 million eligible people. Some lists included in Category:Lists of people do have the word "famous" in their titles, but personally I think it's unnecessary. I'm unaware of any guidelines on this issue. Trezatium 20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Morrison

I've removed Tommy Morrison because his HIV status is uncertain (see this recent news story). Given that he's a living person, I think it's best to omit him unless and until he is confirmed to be truly infected. False positives can occur, as can laboratory mistakes. Trezatium 21:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Wilson (writer, horticulturist)

I added Alex Wilson, hopefully correctly. Here's the reference that refers to his having died with AIDS:

Pinkville 21:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I'm not sure that the reference you cited is entirely reliable. I've replaced it with another reference, though I'm not entirely convinced about that one either. It would be great if someone could find a photo of the memorial or a news article that clearly mentions his cause of death. Trezatium 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your added reference. Writing the stub article on him I ran into a common problem for people prominent in the 1980s and early 1990s - they're not recent enough to have many traces on the Internet, and not old enough to have many traces in printed matter... Pinkville 21:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Mylett

Someone suggested Jeff for this list on the article's talk page. The best source is IMDB mentioned on that page. But it seems over my head technically to see how to add him to this list. Cott12 Talk 22:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but unfortunately IMDB doesn't qualify as a reliable source (as previously discussed). Trezatium 20:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Liberace Source: his entry in Wikipedia
Rock Hudson Source: his entry in Wikipedia, common knowledge, and every newspaper in the USA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dick Kimball (talk • contribs). 19:13, 22 February 2007

Wikipedia can't use itself as a reference and every newspaper is too vague. However it's not necessary since both those entries are already in the list and sourced. Garion96 (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Eve van Grafhorst

Eve van Grafhorst should be added here - i just don't know which section. PMA 11:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Eve is already listed under List of HIV-positive people#Miscellaneous. Rossrs 02:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Since PMA added a duplicate entry for van Grafhorst in the "AIDS activists" section, I've removed her from the "Miscellaneous" list. Trezatium 10:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous

I feel as though I'm going insane on seeing this list. There are 39.5 million people as of 2006 living with AIDS/HIV, according to UNAIDS/WHO. What is the point of Wikipedia listing the tiny number of them who have been mentioned in a newspaper? Some of them are still living, and some did not volunteer the information about themselves. This list is surely a BLP violation at best, and arguably deeply immoral. I was going to nominate it for deletion but then I saw it was a featured list, so there may be no point in nominating it. Can anyone explain how Wikipedia is improved by having it? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For a prior discussion for and against such lists, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with hepatitis C. The discussion on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of HIV-positive people was totally supportive. Where does it violate WP:BLP? The sources used are first-rate.
Similar comments were posted on Talk:List of people with epilepsy. As a result of reading WP:BLP, I reviewed that list and performed an audit on the living people mentioned. You'd be surprised how open and campaigning these famous-names are. They are often actively recruited by charities to help remove stigma and help with awareness campaigns. If listing famous people with XYZ condition was "deeply immoral", then I'm sure the XYZ-condition charities wouldn't do it themselves. Colin°Talk 22:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem is called Yad Vashem, a name and a place. At the center of the front page on the website there is a way to search and add names to the list. Being listed and remembered is a good, humanizing thing. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I knew I'd end up wishing I hadn't asked. List of people with hepatitis C? List of people with epilepsy? :-(
How about List of people with horrible noses/list of people we should beat up/list of people who maintain unpleasant lists?
Feel free to browse through Category:Lists of people by medical condition and Category:Lists of people by proposed medical condition and Category:Lists of people. I tried to kill (prod, afd) some lists, sometimes it worked sometimes not. Often the best thing is to source those lists and stop incoming unsourced crap. Which was the reason I worked on this list to clean it up from an unsourced mess. This article I do think is important, considering the stigma people get when having HIV. It's been a while since I worked on this list, but I don't they are many people on this list who are not open about their condition. Perhaps only in the pornographic film industry section (from that section I think a bunch of the actual articles should be deleted) and the Criminal transmission of HIV section. Garion96 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, some of them are open about their conditions, but some are not, and this list mixes them up. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, can you give any examples of those who aren't open about their condition? Per the discussion at the Hepatitis C AfD, it looks as though a requirement for listing here would be that they (or their surviving families) are open about it. I don't think the tone of the article is in any way disrespectful or "stigmatising" of sufferers, but I agree that listing people here who were 'outed' as HIV-positive without their prior consent would be a BLP violation (except in cases of criminal transmission). That would be a reason to remove them from the list, but not a reason not to have the list at all. --YFB ¿ 00:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a concern that, despite the impeccable sourcing, is prevalent is that some of these people are not necessarily hyper-public figures; this Wikipedia articles puts them at the top of Google searches where they would not be otherwise and contains very sensitive information that, while is public (such that we could get it), would not otherwise be compiled in such immaculate detail. It is rather insensitive to those who are listed on it. --Iamunknown 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

True, we already tried to solve that a bit by not accepting red links in this article. I also think some articles of the people on this list could be deleted. Garion96 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This type of list occasionally attracts some very hot criticism so here's the background on its genesis. A bit more than a year ago I started Wikipedia's first featured list of this type: List of notable brain tumor patients. That was a revised and reverified version of a similar list I had compiled and circulated during my father's illness, and which had received an enthusiastic reception in the patient and caregiver community because it was several times larger and better referenced than any previous list of its type. A leading brain tumor charity even contacted me to request the original list and has since reproduced excerpts from it in its publications. All of the information from that list was released voluntarily by the patients and/or surviving familiy. Brain tumors strike people of any age and have surpassed leukemia as the leading cause of childhood cancer deaths in the United States. That list serves a useful purpose for parents and teachers who want to humanize the condition and combat its stigma. It also provided reassurance to patients of all ages who wanted to feel that they were not alone. With the advantages of collaborative editing at Wikipedia, that list has grown far larger than I had been able to compile alone.

Other editors who had a similar respectful interest in other ailments have followed this example. The editors who have worked on this list have impressed me with the same attention to dignity and discretion that I paid and that these subjects demand. I respect the expressed concerns and affirm with confidence that, to the best of my knowledge, these lists serve a purpose and BLP concerns have been adequately addressed. DurovaCharge! 01:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's true that articles like this are actually a good thing and helps de-stigmatise diseases. Not mentioning it or deleting this article will only have the opposite effect. I congratulate the creators for such an exquisite article. Christopher Connor 14:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This kind of list is absolutely disgusting, I agree 100% with SlimVirgin. They didn't choose to have this disease, they didn't want it. This list will serve only one thing : emphasize the disease and remove all the rest. Making a differences between "famous people" and "famous HIV Positive people" is an insult for all HIV Positive people. It's nazi, nothing else, nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.210.78.36 (talk) 01:29, August 27, 2007 (UTC)


This list is detestable. But it does, however, raise a few good questions that might justify its place on Wikipedia. We must hate such a presentation at first glance, at the very least, for potentially outing individuals who do not truly intend to be publicly identified as infected with HIV. Yet I can imagine that such a list, of individuals who are infected but continue to succeed in society, might actually offer hope to those who have been recently infected with the disease. Some restructuring might be called for, whereby the living are highlighted in a respectful manner, and the deceased are given their deserved time to step out of the spotlight. As for allegations of Nazism, well, that's purely preposterous. Nazis might have selectively oppressed and exterminated, but that kind of rhetoric doesn't do us any good here. William J Kimmerle

I agree it is disgusting. Like I said elsewhere like having a list of adulterers. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Criminal transmission still notable?

Hi. I was just passing by this article the other day and happened to have a news story about a new criminal conviction at hand. I added the fellow to the criminal transmission section and also added a link to Trevis Smith. I've just noticed that both additions were deleted pretty quickly although Trevis Smith's original entry under Sports remains, even though his bio is almost entirely consumed by his conviction. Any idea why? Has criminal convictions for this no longer notable? Is it only notable in Canada seeing as most of the criminal-transmission entries are from Canada? Searching for such convictions is not something I do regularly but I'm curious as to the rationale for inclusion/deletion. Canuckle 22:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

While waiting for dialogue on guidelines on notability criteria for criminal transmission, I've added a See also: Criminal transmission of HIV to that section of the list. It does seem like the section that stands out the most from the others, the people listed are involuntarily notable and always better to be cautious when the courts are involved. Canuckle 00:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
One of the criteria for inclusion in this list is a corresponding article in Wikipedia. If you know of any notable HIV-positive people not currently in the list, for whom you can supply at least one reliable reference, then please go ahead and create an article on them and then add them to the list. Alternatively, post the name and the reference on this talk page and I or someone else will do the rest. But please ensure that you have a reliable reference, especially if the person in question is still alive.
With regard to Trevis Smith, we need to determine what he is most notable for: either being a sportsman or being convicted for criminal transmission. Personally I don't know nearly enough about Canadian football to make a judgement on this issue. Trezatium 12:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Trevis Smith is notable due to his status as a professional athlete (even if in the low-profile linebacker position). However, if he won awards I haven't seen that mentioned in media articles. It should be fair to say he was an obscure figure for the general public until criminal charges were laid. He may have been the first person to play in the CFL while HIV-positive -- but his status was not public knowledge until criminal charges were laid. If a reader didn't know that background, the current description on this list under Sports would give the inaccurate impression that he voluntarily revealed this info and was a leader like Magic Johnson. In fact, without criminal charges his HIV status would have remained private. Much of the media coverage and controversy about Smith's case was due to this secrecy. The team received enormous criticism (deserved or not) for witholding his status from other teammates, competitors and the community (given that the team knew he may be promiscious but did not warn fans looking for relationships with players). If he has to be listed in one category, I'd move him to Criminal because that's where the balance of his notability lies. The 'first in the CFL' and 'controversy over HIV confidentiality in competition' could be of interest to readers following sports issues. You could have a duplicate entry under Sports but I would just have it say "refer above to criminal transmission." Canuckle 21:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
As you suggested, for your consideration I've created the article for Carl Leone from recent coverage of his guilty plea. My first impression was that criminal convictions are so rare that each one is notable. But perhaps the passage of time has lessened their notability. Canuckle 03:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply on Trevis Smith. I've moved him to the criminal transmission section as suggested.

Criminal transmission cases used to be unusual but over the last year or two they've become commonplace - there seems to be a new one in the news almost every week (for some examples, see Criminal transmission of HIV, this table and the list in this article). With this in mind, I'd question the notability of Carl Leone. It appears that the only unusual feature of his case is the number of charges involved. Trezatium 07:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on the Leone article. I withdraw my comment on notability, and have added him to the list. Trezatium 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed Savitz

Ed Savitz is listed under Business. Appears that he was an actuary in his brother's company. His HIV-positive status was revealed after he was charged. He may have died before trial and I couldn't tell whether the charges related to his HIV status.Canuckle 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not trying to find quality problems, really!! I was just looking to copy the chart for use in another list and stumbled on Savitz's odd entry. Canuckle 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions are very welcome here. I too have doubts about the notability of Ed Savitz. I'll raise this on the talk page of his article. Trezatium 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, after re-reading the guidelines, I reckon the article probably wouldn't make it through the deletion process, if only because the subject was mentioned in at least three New York Times articles, and caused a reported "AIDS scare in the Philadelphia area". Trezatium 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not mentioned in his article but one of the References ([1]) does state the class action civil suit against him was considered '"unusual" and "precedent setting" because it places the onus on those with sexual diseases to warn their potential partners.' That mighthelp his notability. However, he's probably better off listed under Miscellaneous on this list as he wasn't noted as a businessman. I did change "convicted" to "accused". Canuckle 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree and I've moved him. Trezatium 06:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

James Dressel

A note on Talk:James K. Dressel asked for a reliable source to confirm his HIV status for this list. I don't know if this is disqualified as "original research", but: I am his nephew, and I know for a fact that he died from AIDS-related pneumonia. If you need an out-of-Wiki source, there's this. - Tverbeek 14:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's enough to satisfy me so I've added him to the list. Thanks for helping. Trezatium 18:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect a webpage link and someone claiming to be his nephew isn't adequate. You need to reference the original article. Anyone could have made that web page. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tony Azito reference?

Does anyone have access to the full article on Tony Azito? Does it make reference to his sexuality? I am trying to find a reference so I can add him to List of LGB people, but it's proving difficult. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for additions

Three names that have appeared in the news lately, that might well deserve articles and subsequent addition to the list:

I might add these myself if I have the time. Trezatium (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard

Several sources state he was HIV+, and at least one news article quotes an acquaintance of him having been informed by Shepard of his HIV+ status. Is that sufficient evidence for Shepard to be added to the list? New Details Emerge in Matthew Shepard Murder Werdnawerdna (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Elegibility for being listed

Hi everybody, I noticed the Criminally transferred section is a bit male orientated and wanted to add a lady named Sarah Jane Porter, but does she need to have an article about her to be included on this list? Ryan4314 (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of the criteria for inclusion. Garion96 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I have the time to create one for her, I'm working on two articles at the mo as it is. Shame though, this sort of thing is one my gripes with featured content. Mind I can see why it has to be done, else the list would be full of non-notable mentions, cheers anyway. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nadja Benaissa

I added her to the music section. If she gets convicted for having sex with those guys without telling them she had HIV then you might want to put her in the Criminal category instead.--EchetusXe (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No need. Whatever happens she will still more be notable as a musician so should belong in the music section. Garion96 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistitled and mischaracterized

This article is certainly nothing remotely close to a list of those people known to have been HIV-positive. (Consider for example all the people named on the AIDS Memorial Quilt who have not been mentioned here.)

It is a list of well-known people known to have been HIV-positive. (Please note I am commenting only on the mismatch between the article's title and its contents.)

There is a huge difference.Daqu (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an explicit rule against using the title of a list article to make special note of the fact that it's a list of notable people rather than a list of all people; that fact is already covered by standard policies about who qualifies for inclusion in such a list in the first place, so it's not necessary for the title to double down on the fact. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. Unfortunately, this policy as you describe it conflicts with another Wikipedia policy I am familiar with: Ensure that what appears in Wikipedia is true.
Oh, and by any chance is there any reason whatsoever for this policy?Daqu (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
See WP:LISTNAME. There simply isn't any need for the title to be anything else; nobody with any understanding of Wikipedia policy would ever expect this to be a list of every single person in the world who ever contracted HIV regardless of whether they were actually notable enough to be listed in an encyclopedia in the first place. And by the way, Wikipedia doesn't actually have a rule about "truth", as such — what we have is a rule about verifiability. Something, such as the HIV status of a non-notable individual, can be simultaneously both true and unverifiable by reliable sources — but the rule that pertains here is whether or not it's verifiable, not whether or not it's true. All things that are verifiable are true, obviously, but not all things that are true are necessarily verifiable. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear. You see, to "ensure that what appears in Wikipedia is true" means precisely the same thing as "verify what appears in Wikipedia".
ALSO: About 99.9% of Wikipedia users who are not contributors will be 100% unfamiliar with this detail of "Wikipedia policy". They will simply read what is in the articles, including their titles. Presumably the contributors have some concern about how typical non-contributing users react to what's in Wikipedia. At least I do.Daqu (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Gendin

Any reason Stephen Gendin is listed twice (in a row)? Just thought I would point it out. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor error in adding a different new name, most likely; the reference for one of the two listings was actually about somebody named Evan Ruderman and didn't mention Stephen Gendin at all. That said, Ruderman can't be included here right now as she doesn't actually have a Wikipedia article to link to. If somebody does write one up, however, the following entry can then be readded to the list:

|- valign="top" | '''[[Evan Ruderman]]''' | (1959–2003) | American AIDS activist | <ref>{{cite news ||url = http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/nyregion/evan-ruderman-44-activist-for-many-causes.html| title = Evan Ruderman, 44, Activist for Many Causes| work = The New York Times | date= [[2003-11-21]] | accessdate = 2009-06-29 }}</ref>

Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Entries without corresponding articles

Per the criteria for this list I removed some entries without corresponding articles. If articles are created the entries can be added again. See this edit for future reference. Garion96 (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this unconstructive edit. While these entries don't have articles, they are significant individuals that died of AIDS. Mel Cheren for example, was a leading music producer. Fernando Pena was a big actor in South America. Simply deleting them off the list because they don't have an article is insensitive and downright wrong.--XLR8TION (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a long standing criteria on this list and a criteria to keep it's featured list status. See this talk page and the archives. Nothing insensitive about it, if entries are not notable enough that someone created an article they don't belong on this list. It can always be re added when an article is created. Garion96 (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I have seen that articles are usually created within time. There are actually articles on some subjects in other foreign language editions of Wikipedia. However, Mel, Fernando, and other entries with no articles deserve to be added to the list. Mel appeared in many AIDS documentaries and Fernando was a big television star in Argentina. --XLR8TION (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Then feel free to try to change the current consensus on this list regarding red links/black links. But to keep this being a featured list they must go. Garion96 (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
If the entries should be on the list, you could always create stubs for these. Garion96 (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Howard Rollins wasnt hiv positiv any were, only in wiki .

thear is no were in the internt i look for that says he had aids , "The official cause of Rollins' death, Gates said, was "bacterial infection from septic shock." so maybe you mistake about him .poor man.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.216.233 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Diceman (Dublin entertainer)

There are now references added regarding the late Thom McGinty.Autarch (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-organization

As someone who is HIV Positive, I really wish list was reorganized. I think the living need to be separated from those that have passed on. Since 1996 the number of death case has dropped dramatically. And also I wish people would distinguish the difference from HIV vs. AIDS. I do not have AIDS, I am HIV positive, so when referring to someone who has HIV don't say they have AIDS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.88.7 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As someone else who is HIV+, I like the way the list is currently set up. From a logistical standpoint, having separate lists of living vs deceased HIV+ people would make the page look rather cluttered and require more upkeep. On a personal level, I feel that emphasizing the declining death rate only serves to further the current generation of young people's belief that HIV is a minor illness with no real complications. That's one of the problems with a list like this, it's easy for those of us who are affected to get our beliefs tangled up with relatively minor layout issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.50.92 (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Did David Cole die of AIDS or spinal meningitis?

Ls, Apart from the reference in footnote 93, where David Cole is mentioned in a list of people who died of AIDS, all reference (including his Wikipedia article) state that he died of spinal meningitis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.22.212.183 (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Naomi Russell

I noticed Naomi Russell is on the list of pornographic actors/actresses with HIV, but the linked citation doesn't mention her at all. There seems to have been an internet rumor regarding this that was never settled. Anyone have some better info here? Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This one is going to need some input from editors. Internet rumors appear to be impacting wikipedia content. Bad enough. But in this case wikipedia is identifying living persons as HIV positive, based entirely on internet rumors. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

semiprotection

I've semi'ed this (in the absence of Pending Changes) as it strikes me as a highly vulnerable article, where not-too-quickly-reverted vandalism could be picked up by a mirror somewhere. I am going to sleep now, but if there is a consensus to unprotect I will not kick up a fuss, so discuss away. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I support and suggest the entire article be deleted. There is no reason to publicly list people who are known to have HIV. Just because a reliable source mentions someone has HIV, that doesn't mean we should. This is potentially embarassing information. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

About as blatant abuse of data-mining on Wikipedia as I can imagine. Utterly unjustified. The people on the list aren't (with maybe a few exceptions) notable for being HIV-positive. I'm almost tempted to blank the list here and now. This is none of our business. What next? A Wikipedia DNA database? A Wikipedia fingerprint catalog? Delete, and be done with it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. Make your case at WP:AFD. The tide has turned WRT BLP issues in the past two years or so, so you never know...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there are bigger considerations here. This is blatant defamation of character in some cases (such as Naomi Russell and others who appear not to be infected at all), and grounds for a lawsuit. Are editors who add demonstrably false claims like this legally culpable? Is wikipedia? This page is a lawsuit waiting to happen in my view and should be removed immediately. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see Naomi on the list. And if she was, I assume she was removed quickly. I think Category:Deaths from AIDS-related illness and it's subcategories are a BLP nightmare, this list is not. Yes, editors are culpable for their edits. Garion96 (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, she was on there for some time I believe. Again, the legal issues this page raises are serious enough that it warrants deletion. In the meantime, I will also make a point of personally contacting people who make it onto the list but shouldn't be there, so they have the option of taking legal action. I don't think editors here understand the severity of the problem when you list someone as HIV positive who either 1) isn't HIV positive, or 2) doesn't want that information out in the public. Legal issues aside, the ethics of offering a list of publicly known HIV cases is questionable at best. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides vandalism, there are no legal issues here. This is a completely sourced list which means all the information on this list is already out in the public. The reason I worked on this list was to remove all entries falling under 1). Garion96 (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, just because something is sourced doesn't mean it is accurate. For example the Naomi Russell entry was sourced to an article that said nothing about her HIV status. The only places where rumors of her having HIV were mentioned, were martial arts and porno forums. I just don't think wikipedia policy is strong enough to keep this sort of article free from those kinds of issues, and I believe there are serious ethical problems with a large public list of people with HIV (regardless of whether there are public sources behind them). Again, I am contacting multiple people from this list as we speak, so they know they are on it. Unless the article is deleted, I will continue to do so. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Then the Naomi Russel entry was not sourced. Just to tag a irrelevant article to it does not make it sourced. Feel free to contact people, kind of pointless (whether this article gets deleted or not) but go ahead. Garion96 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is hardly pointless. That was libel. She can sue over it. My point is, someone listed a reliable source, that simply didn't apply to the entry. I have already contacted her and others who made it onto the page. I will also be contacting a number of civil rights attorneys in my area, and my attorney general. Make no mistake Garion, this is a serious legal matter. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

She could sue the anon ip/vandal who added her I guess. For the rest, go ahead! Garion96 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am. Such a list is simply barbaric. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And any entries that are untrue, are simply libel. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides that vandal entry. Did you find any? Garion96 (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been others in the past such as Carmella Bing. Others have found problem entries as well. The page itself is going to have such problems. You said so yourself. There is both a legal issue and an appropriateness issue here. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean on the current list. Not in the passed some vandalism one. I didn't found Carmella Bing on the list or on the discussion pages. Garion96 (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't examined the present list yet. I examined it when Carmella Bing was on it and when Naomi Russell was on it. A major problem as neither has HIV. Others on the talk page who have looked at the present page have found issues with it. The problem isn't whether there are presently people on the list who aren't HIV positive, but the fact that this will happen again and again in the future. Plus there is the reprehensible nature of the list itself. It looks like you've spent time editing it, but don't let that cloud your vision here. This article is morally repugnant and legally problematic. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Then it can't have been on here for long. You misunderstand me though. Despite the fact I cleaned up this list I am not such a huge fan of it or the other ones in Category:Lists of people by medical condition. I think this fully referenced list is better then Category:Deaths from AIDS-related illness and Category:HIV-positive people. Plus I do object to some hyperbole I see on this talk page and on the AFD page. This list is not a BLP nightmare and it is fully referenced. Despite some vandal entries which are usually quickly removed. Garion96 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

People are reacting with moral outrage. You may disagree with it, but that doesn't make it hyperbole. I find it morally repugnant and barbaric. Might as well have a list of known adulterers and known drug users. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my time is limited, but can you show diffs as to low long each was listed here erroneously? Also was the article emi'ed at the time? Were there issues when semi'ed before? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Naomi Russel for 2 days I think. Way too long. I guess recent changers watchers just saw the reference without reading it. The rest I don't know. From a quick look at the history I see unsourced and vandal additions removed quite quickly. This is only the second semi-protection of the article. Garion96 (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


That was two days of libelous content. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This article seems pretty grotesque at first sight: can we please clarify that ALL those featured both know and have specifically authorized that their personal medical details be advertised in this article, or else delete entry/article ASAP. Gross violation of privacy if not? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEGAL. This is not acceptable behaviour. Colin°Talk 08:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record I am not threatening litigation, I am threatening to inform people who are on the page, so they can take legal action if they want to. Libel was committed on this page. Perhaps rather than attack me, you should work to make sure other peopled aren't defamed. You have just cited wikipedia policy guidelines, I could just as easily cite US legal codes. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs) has now been blocked indefinitely. Colin°Talk 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Title change

Can the title be changed to "List of People Living with HIV", which is more correct? That would be more correct and in line with other diseases such as diabetes - i.e. people living with diabetes, not Diabetes-positive people. --Solipsia (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, the majority of those listed are no longer living, so the proposed title would be unsuitable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this list is pretty unbelievable. I also think it's inappropriate. We don't have a list of people with other health conditions, it's ridiculous to have a list that would include 40 million people, and the people included are overwhelmingly from low prevalence countries (mostly US). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.57.148 (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There are at least 24 lists of people with other health conditions. See Category:Lists of people by medical condition. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Broad brush

"HIV is typically transmitted through unprotected sex or intravenous drug use, ..." It might be helpful to mention that it has also been contracted through transfusions of contaminated blood (see photo of Mr. White), and on rare occasions through organ transplants.Mannanan51 (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

Complaints

Outrage

this list is outrageous. My first thought was 'it's like a list to mark, and in a extreme a jew list in holocaust'.

The international organisation from which we are members consider "that the list is prejudicial and perpetuates stigma and discrimination. I hope they have a list of all the other ailments that people have suffered from those that were in the limelight. By having a list it is not treated as a normal condition that people get but as something that is very abominable."

Knowing that there are more lists does not benefit the criteria of wikipedia regarding human rights. Therefore we request that you remove this list (considered by you with high quality).

We agree on free information, but with quality, and quality means a message that includes human rights. That is not the case. Again we request to delete this list as it represents prejudice and stigma against people living with HIV.

Freedom without human rights its nothing,its empty.

isabel nunes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seres vih (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 June 2011

Offensive?

This page is highly offensive. It should be removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strathos (talk • contribs) 13:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you consider it offensive? We don't remove articles based on vague assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 187.68.48.52, 3 July 2011

jake Glaser HIV Activist http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20196368,00.html http://www.poz.com/articles/1801_10335.shtml http://www.paulmichaelglaser.org/archives.html

187.68.48.52 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This article only lists people who have otherwise already been deemed notable and have their own wikipage. As Glaser does not, he can't be added to this list. If an article is created on him at a later date, he could be added here. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there is an argument for including Jake on the list, redlinked. this is not just a list of people otherwise notable, but people of any notability, including their HIV status if it is what they are at least partially notable for. Most lists here can include subject for whom an article is likely to be written, as long as references are provided, which we have here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_HIV-positive_people/Archive_3&oldid=1136917379"