Talk:Ryan White/Archive 1

Not Kokomo

While born in Kokomo, Ryan White did not live in Kokomo or attend one of Kokomo's schools. He attended the small rural school of Western. But because of the movie and the proximity of the area, the greater public has lumped Kokomo in with the Western School district as being ignorant and hateful towards Ryan White. This is patently false, as the Kokomo Center Schools offered to allow Ryan to attend, but the family refused. While the main body of the article is true enough and correctly states Western's closer connection to the small community of Russiaville (as opposed to Kokomo), the header text that everyone sees and that was featured on the frontpage still persists in blaming Kokomo for harrassing Ryan White. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.110.147.14 (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than this even. The Western School Corporation, although the school's address is Russiaville, also serves parts of southwestern Kokomo. As I understand it, the Whites actually lived in this part of Kokomo. White was also born in Kokomo. What's more, this is all part of the Kokomo metropolitan area--many of the people in this area identify as "from Kokomo". The incidents the Whites described, in terms of going out in public, also occurred primarily in Kokomo. At any rate, it's not about "blaming Kokomo"--it was people, not the city itself however defined--that did things. --JayHenry (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the person that posted the start of this section. That is the first I have heard that the Kokomo Schools actually invited Ryan to attend. The media has always failed to mention that fact. I would like to add that the Kokomo Schools were integrated in the 1970's. So I wonder what the real reason was that the family refused to send Ryan to the Kokomo Schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.102.199 (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

NPR's Ryan White Story

i remember an eight or ten piece program aired on South Carolina Public Radio back in the late eighties or early nineties. does anyone have any information about this program? παράδοξος (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You might do a search on the more general npr.org website. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

searched the NPR website before this post, thanks. παράδοξος (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

So how'd he get AIDS?

I didn't see it really spelt out. Was it a blood transfusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.80.212 (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A haemophiliac, he became infected with HIV from a contaminated blood treatment. Couldn't be any clearer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Specifically the Factorate he was taking for haemophilia, which was infected with HIV. Taken from the official website, and page "ryan's words":..."I contracted AIDS through my Factorate which is made from blood." 78.86.230.62 (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Or to make it simpler, Ryan's blood didn't clot. So he needed the blood factor to assist in that and one batch was infected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.162.107 (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And back then they didn't even know the disease existed so obviously couldn't test for it - hence a fair number of supplies were contaminated. Orderinchaos 20:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My edits

I hope that they are not misconstrued. I am well aware of the fact that HIV is not a very robust virus and dies within hours of leaving its host, however, to pretend that the people of Kokomo were ignorant of widely accepted medical facts is laughable. It was first discovered in 1981, merely 5 years before Ryan was diagnosed.24.125.19.104 (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)should have a name but I don't

A note to American wikipedians

When writing someone's birth and death place, be sure to give the complete place name. Not everyone in the world knows where Indiana is or what it even is. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with this comment. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs expanding

I see in the timeline this "Mar. 2 White's opponents hold an auction in the school gymnasium to raise money to keep White out.[14]".

However, there is no expanding on this in the article and the reference is just the name of an AP story. Could this be expanded in the article? --mboverload@ 02:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Curious

Did the Western School Corporation ever apologise for the awful way they treated Ryan White? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why should Western High School have apologized to Ryan White. Maybe Ryan's mom should have apologized to Western High, for putting them through what she did. I attended Western, and was a Sophomore and Junior while all this was going on, and Western High and it's students treated Ryan better than we are portrayed. Yes there were a few that made a bad name for the rest of us, however, He was treated, very well by the students. He did not sit alone, he had friends. We as the students knew that unless we were trading bodily fluids we were safe. The parents did what parents are supposed to do, be slightly over protective. Ryan's mother was a gold-digging, publicity hound. The movie made her out to be some saint, and she was far from a saint. Maggie1969 (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC) maggie1969

Sorry, but calling Jeanne White a "gold-digging publicity hound" is like comparing her to Nadia "OctoMom" Suleman and HER antics...and Jeanne WAS INDEED a saint!...and there are STILL a few folks in the area who to this day think that Ryan got the harsh public shunning he deserved...America loves and respects Jeanne and her crusade for the fair treatment of ALL AIDS victims...I wish it was still the same in Arcadia, Florida, where the only survivng Ray brother and his wife are finally getting the apologies from a now-changed(and aware) public...Michaela92399 (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

I notice the lack of any images besides the one in the infobox and Bush. Perhaps someone should try and find out whether or not Ryan White Digital Archive is free source? --haha169 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, and it has three photos, none of which are very good images. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually tried to contact the Ryan White Digital Archive and they never responded. The images are not of the highest quality, but I would have liked to have included one of Ryan and friends at his locker. These were the sort of images I remember that were common in the media at the time. --JayHenry (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Similar Cases?

Great article, I seem to remember something very similar back in Hawaii when I lived there in the late 80's a bit of googling turned up Matthew Wyatt and this article. http://www.aegis.com/news/ads/1988/AD881467.html perhaps worth a mention? 216.220.15.211 (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If there were an article about Wyatt (which there isn't currently), then I would say to put a "See also" section in both articles and list the other article. As of now, Wyatt is not deemed notable enough for someone to write and article about him, so I would say not to mention it in the White article. --rogerd (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

White, Magic Johnson, HIV and AIDS

User:David Levy has persistently attempted to divert the mention of Magic Johnson as one of the emerging advocates for research and education. He removed the word AIDS from the sentence "Over the course of the 1980s and 1990s, that perception shifted as White and other prominent people with HIV or AIDS, such as the Ray brothers, Magic Johnson and Kimberly Bergalis, appeared in the media to advocate for more AIDS research and public education to address the epidemic" by declaring that it implied that Johnson has AIDS. It was presented as HIV/AIDS, HIV and AIDS, and HIV or AIDS, none of which apparently were acceptable to him and was approaching a 3RR issue. Now he has reworded the sentence to say "That perception shifted as White and other prominent people with AIDS, such as the Ray brothers and Kimberly Bergalis, appeared in the media to advocate for more AIDS research and public education to address the epidemic" giving the rationale of tightened statement to focus on White's lifetime. That is deceptive, particularly since the combined active period of advocacy for all of these persons was ongoing after White's death. Omitting Johnson from the list with the rationale of limiting it to White's lifetime in effect separates Johnson from Ryan White for invalid reasons. What's the problem here? He has yet to bring this discussion to this talk page, so we are left to draw our own conclusions. Magic Johnson has been an activist for HIV and AIDS education. His work continues what Ryan White did. It's disengenous to remove him from this article, especially based on the lifetime rationale. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Magic should somehow be mentioned, I changed the sentence, not suggesting that he has AIDS. IsFari (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I endorse IsFari's change to the article. --mboverload@ 09:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too - I have memories of this being a pretty improtant issue to Magic, who was a role model for young people. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood the grammatical point that David was making ie the sentence implied Johnson's T-cell count was below a certain level or he was symptomatic, etc. But of all these people, Magic Johnson was probably the most significant advocate of AIDS research. Not just my personal opinion -- this is also demonstrated by the Kaiser Family Foundation study in the references. --JayHenry (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate Wildhartlivie's misrepresentation of my edits.

I have not "persistently attempted to divert the mention of Magic Johnson as one of the emerging advocates for research and education." I merely want to avoid falsely stating or implying that he has AIDS.
Prior to my first edit, the lead clearly and unambiguously stated that he did. ("Over the course of the 1980s and 1990s that perception shifted as White and other prominent people with AIDS, such as the Ray brothers, Magic Johnson and Kimberly Bergalis, appeared widely in the media advocating more AIDS research and public education.") This flagrantly incorrect information even made it into the main page blurb (which is where I noticed it).
So I simply replaced "AIDS" with "HIV" in the article and on the main page. In addition to being more correct (because Magic Johnson doesn't have AIDS), this seemed more relevant to me (because the context was infection).
Shortly thereafter, this was changed to read "HIV and AIDS," which easily could be interpreted to mean that all of the listed individuals had/have both. So I reverted with that explanation. JayHenry reverted back, stating that the statement should be interpreted to mean that all of these individuals had/have AIDS (apparently missing the point that Magic Johnson does not). So I reverted again, once again explaining this fact. This was my second and final reversion (and obviously was performed due to a misunderstanding on JayHenry's part), so I don't know why Wildhartlivie has claimed that I "was approaching a 3RR issue."
Wildhartlivie edited the lead to state that the listed individuals had/have "HIV or AIDS," which I viewed as an unacceptable phrase. Every person has neither HIV nor AIDS, HIV (but not AIDS), or both.
At this point, it occurred to me that Magic Johnson's infection was diagnosed in 1991 (after Ryan White's death), so the issue could be avoided by simply confining the statement to the people whose advocacy coincided with White's (all of whom had AIDS). The resultant edit was not an attempt to suppress coverage of Magic Johnson's impact (prominently mentioned in the Legacy section, which addresses events following White's death), and at no point did I "remove him from this article." It was a good-faith effort to improve the lead's accuracy and focus.
I'm fine with the current wording ("HIV-infected people"), which is substantially the same as my first attempt ("people with HIV"). —David Levy 08:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that all of this could have easily been resolved had you bothered to open a discussion regarding this on this page, rather than carrying it out in edit summaries, as opening this question was done by me. I also said the same in opening the discussion: He has yet to bring this discussion to this talk page, so we are left to draw our own conclusions. Since this was a matter of how it reads to people, it would have been much more logical to actually present your viewpoint, rather than shout it in an edit summary. Left with only that, one is only left with one's interpretation of the issue. It you're insulted, I am sorry, but you made no effort to discuss it. I saw three attempts to change the same thing, to me that's approaching a 3RR. In any case, in my view, it was dealt with poorly and thus, I made note on the talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

1. We needn't discuss everything on talk pages. If a rationale can adequately be conveyed via an edit summary (and you're welcome to explain how my edit summaries failed to convey the fact that Magic Johnson doesn't have AIDS), there's no need to repeat the same thing here.

2. The three-revert rule prohibits performing a reversion in an article four or more times in a 24-hour period. I reverted twice, and the second reversion was of someone who explicitly acknowledged that the wording conveyed that all of the listed individuals (including Magic Johnson) had/have AIDS. Are you suggesting that it was appropriate to state this? (I have to wonder, given the fact that you're including my simple change from "AIDS" to "HIV" in your criticism of my edits.)

3. Why did you claim that I have "persistently attempted to divert the mention of Magic Johnson as one of the emerging advocates for research and education" and "remove[d] him from this article." You say that the situation was open to interpretation, but those assertions are factually false. I once removed a single mention of Magic Johnson (while leaving another intact), and I explained that I did so to restrict the statement to information that applied to White's lifetime. (Given the fact that we have a separate section addressing his legacy, I feel that this is logical.)

4. If you felt that my participation on this talk page was so important, why didn't you leave a note on my talk page (as I routinely do when raising issues pertaining to a particular user's edits)? I would have noticed the discussion much sooner. —David Levy 18:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

1. When more than one person was unsure about your changes, then it would seem logical to me to open a discussion. You missed the part where I said it wasn't clear to me what you were doing with your changes, except to shout that Johnson doesn't have AIDS. I suppose it didn't occur to you that others weren't reading it the same as you. I'm not specifically criticizing your edits. It was the manner in which they were done - with the shouting edit summaries and finally the hidden note saying only one thing.

2. I saw this change, followed by this removal, this removal, and this rewording. In the absence of anything besides what looked to me like increasingly adamant edit summaries, it looks like approaching 3RR to me.

3. Again, no attempt by you to discuss it, and that's how it looked to me. The reason I changed your edit to read "HIV and AIDS" or "HIV or AIDS" was to avoid it saying Johnson has AIDS. To me, and I think to JayHenry, that sentence then was saying that these other three high profile persons who had HIV or AIDS were also influential in changing perceptions. That you'd changed it three times, then removed Johnson from the sentence had all the appearance of removing him.

4. This article was the FA, it was being subjected to massive attempts at vandalism. It's hard to see the content dispute from the fringe people at the rate of an edit in less than every 10 minutes. Don't adminstrators recommend opening a talk page discussion when issues like this crop up? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

1a. JayHenry (the only editor whose reversion to "HIV and AIDS" I reverted) did read the statement the same way that I did; After pointing out that Magic Johnson doesn't have AIDS, I noted that the statement "could be interpreted to mean that all of the individuals listed had/have AIDS," and he replied that "it could and should be interpreted this way." And yet, I don't see you criticising JayHenry for "edit warring" or failing to initiate a talk page discussion. (And I don't blame him for this either; it was an honest misunderstanding on his part.)

1b. What "shouting edit summaries"? I used some all-caps words in one summary (and this was for emphasis, which cannot be conveyed in edit summaries via bold or italicized text).

1c. What "hidden note"? I don't know what you mean.

2. Then you obviously don't understand the three-revert rule.

3a. How can you possibly believe that JayHenry thought that? He plainly stated otherwise! In reverting my edit, he explicitly noted that he did so because we "should" convey that all of the listed individuals (including Magic Johnson) had/have AIDS. Well, Magic Johnson doesn't have AIDS, and that was the only explanation that I could have provided for reverting. Are you suggesting that I should have duplicated my edit summary on this talk page, or do you mean that I should have left the false statement intact?

3b. You're citing my change from "AIDS" to "HIV" (along with two reversions to "HIV") as evidence that I sought to "remove" Johnson from the article. That makes absolutely no sense.

And again, even the one edit (hardly a "[persistent] attempt") in which I eliminated a mention of Johnson did not "remove him from the article."

4a. When addressing a specific user's conduct, it's courteous to inform that individual on his/her talk page. It's especially rude not to when you're complaining about that person's failure to participate in the discussion.

4b. But what bothers me most of all is your assumption of bad faith. Yes, it sometimes can be difficult to ascertain someone's motives, and that's why the assumption of good faith is so important. It's better to assume good faith on the part of ten vandals than it is to assume bad faith on the part of one well-meaning editor. —David Levy 20:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You know, whatever. You changed it three times prior to rewording. See the links above. Since when does making three changes in 24 hours to the same text, with almost identical changes not border on 3RR? Because you didn't use "undo" or "rollback"? Had I been doing that alone, I may well have gotten a 3RR warning. As I have stated, your edit summaries didn't convey to me what point you were making, which was that as you read it, the statement said Johnson had AIDS. WP:Revert#Explain reverts is pretty clear on this, and germane to the point. I didn't read it the same way that you did, and it appears to me that initially, JayHenry didn't either. At the point you resorted to caps in the edit summary, or perhaps even sooner, when the edit summaries were being used as discussion, you should have opened a section here to better clarify what you were saying. In the midst of removing scores of "homo" and "Life and gayness" and the like from the article, this issue pops up, why wouldn't one wonder. And for the record this is the hidden note. My complaint here wasn't that you didn't participate in a discussion, it was that you didn't bother to open one when you saw that over a period of a few hours, you changed it four times. Don't lecture me about bad faith, it would have diverted all this had you followed WP:Revert#Explain reverts. In any event, I'm not going to continue arguing this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You changed it three times prior to rewording. See the links above. Since when does making three changes in 24 hours to the same text, with almost identical changes not border on 3RR?

Why are you counting the first edit (which wasn't a reversion)? Since when does performing two reversions border on performing four?

Because you didn't use "undo" or "rollback"?

No, the method used to revert is completely irrelevant.

As I have stated, your edit summaries didn't convey to me what point you were making, which was that as you read it, the statement said Johnson had AIDS.

1. How could "Magic Johnson has HIV, but he doesn't have AIDS." followed by "This could be interpreted to mean that all of the individuals listed had/have AIDS." be taken to mean anything else?

2. If you didn't understand my point, how were you able to to respond with the edit summary "this doesn't say he has AIDS, please stop edit warring"?

3. I certainly wasn't aware of any failure to communicate (apart from JayHenry apparently overlooking my first edit). Had you contacted me (via my talk page or e-mail), I would have gladly addressed the issue. Instead, you decided to attack my character on this talk page, referring to my actions as "deceptive" and stating that "it's disengenous [sic] to remove [Magic Johnson] from this article" (despite the fact that I did nothing of the sort).

WP:Revert#Explain reverts is pretty clear on this, and germane to the point.

I did explain my reversions. That page advises users to leave a note on the talk page "if your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary." There is nothing complex about the fact that Magic Johnson doesn't have AIDS.

What could I have posted here beyond "Hey, guys, you know how I noted in my edit summary that Magic Johnson doesn't have AIDS? Well, I wasn't kidding; he really doesn't."?

But again, I would have striven to alleviate any confusion at your request.

I didn't read it the same way that you did, and it appears to me that initially, JayHenry didn't either.

...except, of course, for the fact that he explicitly stated that he did. The problem was that he apparently overlooked my first edit and didn't realize that Magic Johnson doesn't have AIDS.

At the point you resorted to caps in the edit summary,

I "resorted" to nothing. I simply emphasized an important piece of information via a method compatible with MediaWiki. But somehow, a single edit summary containing partially all-caps text becomes multiple "shouting edit summaries" in your mind.

or perhaps even sooner, when the edit summaries were being used as discussion, you should have opened a section here to better clarify what you were saying.

Again, what relevant information could I have provided that wasn't contained within my edit summaries?

In the midst of removing scores of "homo" and "Life and gayness" and the like from the article, this issue pops up, why wouldn't one wonder.

Huh? Wonder what? Are you equating my edits to those?

And for the record this is the hidden note.

Ah, I see. What is your objection to that? How is it unreasonable to advise editors not to incorrectly state that Magic Johnson has AIDS?

Don't lecture me about bad faith,

Don't lecture you?!

it would have diverted all this had you followed WP:Revert#Explain reverts

Again, I explained my reversions. I truly don't know what else, in the absence of anyone expressing confusion, you wanted me to say.

And I still await your explanation of why you accused me of "persistently attempt[ing] to divert the mention of Magic Johnson as one of the emerging advocates for research and education" and "remov[ing] him from this article" after I performed three edits that in no way affected the level of Magic Johnson coverage and a single edit that eliminated one mention of Magic Johnson while leaving behind another. —David Levy 22:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

David, I'm extremely sorry that I misunderstood you but I don't understand your attitude here. I made a single mistaken edit for which I'm sincerely sorry. Please stop beating me up for it. Imagine you have a bunch of bananas and I have a bunch of apples. Someone says "Jay and David have apples and bananas". Is this statement incorrect, or simply ambiguous? It's ambiguous, yes, and once I understood what you were saying I did not revert again. --JayHenry (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to make this clearer: I saw your edit that Johnson does not have AIDS, but I was reading the sentence like in my apples and bananas sentence above. I was interpreting your comment to mean that "since Johnson did not have AIDS the fact that others did was irrelevant." I didn't realize you were saying that a strictly Boolean reading of the sentence meant that Johnson had AIDS as well. I didn't realize the sentence could be read that way, and thus I thought you were objecting to HIV/AIDS saying the focus should be on HIV. Do you see what I'm saying? You've genuinely humiliated me with how stupid I was to interpret it this way. You've really made me feel stupid, okay? I don't even know what else to say to you. You know how 3RR works, and you know BRD, and if you'd just explained what you were doing at talk I would have understood. I sincerely misunderstood the initial edit summaries. --JayHenry (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay, there's absolutely no need for you to apologize, but I sincerely apologize for making you feel as though you were under attack. You have nothing to be embarrassed about, as you did nothing but edit the article in good faith. As noted above, I don't blame you at all, and I'm fully aware that this was an honest misunderstanding. I referenced your edit only to explain why I reverted it; that it was based on a misunderstanding is a mitigating factor (because it's quite different to revert someone when you simply disagree with him/her).

My only intention was to defend myself against Wildhartlivie's accusations, and you just happened to have played a small role in the series of events for which Wildhartlivie criticised me. Again, I'm very sorry for hurting your feelings.—David Levy 04:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OH MY GOD!

Thank you all so very much for FINALLY getting an article related to HIV on the front page! Awesome! As an HIV person, I'm so happy to see as much information about the legacy of our heroes enter the mainstream. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It is an excellent article and a moving reminder of how ignorance compounds the tragedy for those who have the virus. Good work and well done to all those that worked on this. Dostioffski (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Gone Too Soon

Michael Jackson also performed the song "Gone Too Soon" live infront of Bill Clinton, he again dedicated it to Ryan and asked Bill Clinton to give more money to aids research. — Realist² 20:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dedicate or wrote? It's only a minor thing, but from my understanding Jackson actually wrote the song for Ryan. Dedication is when you attribute it some time after the creation of the song. Jackson's aim was to write a song for Ryan, he didn't pick something out of his back catalog and say "oh, hmm, this song I wrote ages ago is now dedicated to Ryan". The song was written about Ryan. It's very different to what Elton John did with the song for diana's death. The songs music video is also video footage or Ryan's battle and the funeral. I should really write some info on the actual song article :-) — Realist² 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Early comments

I think this is a good entry. However, do we need the full text of "Ryan White's Testimony before the President's Commission on AIDS" in the article? I mean, surely it is located somewhere on the Internet that we can just link to. —Frecklefoot 21:13, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, but I don't see it much on the net with a quick Google search. Just ours, the mirror sites, and a site at Geocities (which overall aren't known for their longevity). - Hephaestos 21:16, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How about we link to this page (http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8222/rwtest.htm )—I think it is the Geocities page you were referring to—and just re-insert the text if/when it goes dead. I think the speech is fine, but it sure takes up a lot of space. Imagine if we inserted the text of every US President's speches! —Frecklefoot 21:36, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree, the text overwhelms the article. This would be ideal for the Sourceberg project but I'm not sure what the status is on that right at the moment. - Hephaestos 22:34, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've kludged a temporary solution, I don't think this should probably be done widely, but it'll work here until Sourceberg's able to handle the info. - Hephaestos 22:42, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"It has been speculated that" should refer to a specific individual or group doing the speculating. Otherwise it seems to border on non-NPOV. --Dfeuer 05:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

References

This article has just one source, a biography that is listed at the bottom, but nothing to indicate what content came from that source, with no citations whatsoever. Everything here may be valid, but no reader can tell that without more detailed sourcing. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

I'm trying to find some freely-licensed images for this page. The White House photo isn't great, but it's all I've got for now. I think it's really essential to have a picture of Ryan on this page. If anybody knows of any it'd be greatly appreciated. I've sent an e-mail to http://www.ryan.riverturn.org/ inquiring about the copyright status of their images and asking if they can be released under the GFDL. Any other tips would be greatly appreciated. --JayHenry 01:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ryan's Mustang

I believe Ryan's Mustang convertible was actually a limited-edition factory-painted orange...its most recent whereabouts were that either Jeanne(Mom) or Andrea(sister) actually hid it in an undisclosed Indianapolis-area location in order to protect its safety...Michaela92399 16:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ryan WHO???

It seems that the people of Kokomo are STILL seething w/ anger toward Ryan and his popularity to this day...you barely start mentioning his name and they abruptly change the subject(not because he's now dead, but because[in their views], he brought negative publicity to the city and its history)...how sad that Kokomoans to this day continue to treat his mom and sister like...well, you know...Michaela92399 16:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow

I initially read about Ryan in my American Government textbook, then I came here to read more about him. Ryan's treatment from Kokomo was unjust, and I can't believe that the city is still angry at him today! If there were some charity or funds for him or in his honor, I would definitely donate.Prottos007 22:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-automatic peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
  • 1. Context - see Template:Biography
  • 2. Characterization - appearance, age, gender, educational level, vocation or occupation, financial status, marital status, social status, cultural background, hobbies, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ambitions, motivations, personality, what the term refers to as used in the given context.
  • 3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background.
  • 4. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics, if appropriate.
  • 5. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism. need to compare to other aids spokesmen, if appropriate.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. (Many sentences begin White... can some sentences have the subject of the biography in the middle or end of the sentence to mix up the sentence structure/format/grammar) Thanks, SriMesh | talk 05:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I've made all these fixes. As noted above, I have been attempting to locate a free image, but it's quite difficult given the subject. I think this article is an example of where "headings generally should not repeat" does not apply. The act of congress is known as the "Ryan White Care Act" and we can't just call it the "Care Act" because in addition to being confusing, that's actually the name of a different act. I've tried to fix all dates, and I did a thorough copy edit to reduce redundancy (such as starting too many sentences with "White...") I eagerly await any further suggestions. --JayHenry 19:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re corrections

• As per Wikipedia:Lead section the lead should be...

< 15,000 characters	around 32 kilobytes	> 30,000 characters
one or two paragraphs	two or three paragraphs	three or four paragraphs

This article as it stands now...the article is 14, 104 characters with no spaces, and 16, 751 characters with spaces, so should have a maximum of two paragraphs for the lead, but ideally, could be copy edited into one. If it were to pass a good article review-it would probably be listed under Natural sciences |Biology and medicine | Significant patients for an idea of other formats used for similar biographies in the medical field. Consider for the lead that if it were to pass feature article status at some time, or be posted on a portal - then only the lead is posted - does the lead adequately provide a summary of the whole article, is it very well written compared to the lead on the Wikipedia main page -todays featured article-, and does the lead induce the reader to seek out additional information provided in the ensuing sections? The current lead is four very short paragraphs, and could be tightened up with copyediting.

• The argument in favour of leaving the section heading as is is valid. The use of an image does not necessarily pass or fail a good article. You may wish to use the template {{reqphotoin|Indiana}} on the talk page to gain assistance in finding a photo.

Done. --JayHenry 21:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• You may wish to see if there is a medical Wiki project banner which may be listed on the talk page as well.

Yeah, I've looked into this in the past. The AIDS project is inactive. It's really a media-related topic, so I don't think something like WikiProject Medical Genetics would be appropriate. I've searched quite widely for input as it's been difficult to get any feedback on this article whatsoever. When something like White happens in modern times, there's lots of current events-focused editors. But nobody really pays attention to media events of two decades ago. It's a good suggestion, but I've tried and feel I've exhausted this. --JayHenry 21:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Check out the What Links Here? articles and see if a section in the article could be started entitled See Also which would provide links to internal wiki articles which mention Ryan White in their prose.

I've done this already as well, but rather than a See also section I have contextualized these links into the article. Context is always better than no context. I'm actually surprised that See also sections are not officially discouraged; they are usually lazy article writing. --JayHenry 21:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I upgraded the rating from start to B class- it looks like many of the above points have indeed been addressed. SriMesh | talk 21:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable. For a subject which had controversy in the media, it has been very well written.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

So basically - continue to tweak the lead. Maybe - completely remove this lead, as ideally they are written when the article is finished. Make a paragraph which summarizes the sections or entire outline into a lead paragraph format. Then make a paragraph which addresses, context, characterization, explanation, compare (similar spokespeople), and contrast (differences amongst spokespeople for aids), and any criticism. Thirdly merge the two new paragraphs with the existing or old introduction. Then reduce the whole new merged creation down to one paragraph of the main, most important points.

If this is done, IMHO, I think it may pass overall. Good luck, and good work BTW. SriMesh | talk 21:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead. I used two paragraphs as I feel that one graph summarizes his life itself, the second summarizes his context and legacy. Because these two points are fairly distinct I feel it'd be quite inappropriate to reduce to one paragraph. As White was a 14-year-old who acquired a deadly disease while being treated for a different disease, I think it goes without saying that there was not criticism of him. --JayHenry 21:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed rating to pass, and listed article congratulations! SriMesh | talk 01:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Address Correction

Ryan White did not live in Kokomo and did not attend Kokomo Schools. He lived outside the city limits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.102.68 (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the sources, and I believe the article reflects this: White was born in Kokomo, his family lived in southwest Kokomo, where the assigned public school was outside of city limits, in Russiaville. The harassment took place largely in Kokomo (where most of the public spaces are) and the legal battle took place at the Howard County Circuit Court in Kokokmo. There are sources that talk about how Kokomo has always felt maligned by the Ryan White coverage, but I don't think this article incorrectly attributes anything to Kokomo, though I could change the article to say "Kokomo area" or "Howard County, Indiana" more often, if you think that would be preferable. --JayHenry 15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Falwell comment

I don't see what Falwell's remark has to do with the subject of this article. He was not talking about young Mr. White, and do have this remark in the article is POV. --rogerd (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing it if it offends. My intent was to provide an example of the sort of attitudes that existed about AIDS before Ryan White become a well-known national spokesman. The source used the quote from Falwell and so I followed the source. I found the quote to be vivid, but did not intend for it to seem non-neutral. I have no agenda or interest with regard to Falwell otherwise, and as such I'm fine with the removal as multiple editors agree. I apologize if this seemed that I was trying to grind some sort of axe -- on the contrary, I just want to write interesting articles! --JayHenry (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions and comments

• The Act was reauthorized in 2006; its Ryan White Programs are the largest provider of services for victims of HIV/AIDS. In the US or worldwide?

  Possibly world wide, but the sources are just talking about US. --JayHenry (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• even minor injuries to lead to severe bleeding Unclear. Is one of the "to"s a typo?

  Just a typo. Good catch! --JayHenry (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• at the time of White's rejection from school, the Centers for Disease Control knew of only 148 cases of pediatric AIDS. In the US or worldwide?

  I changed this to "in the US" but then I went and looked at the source and it's regrettably ambiguous. It quotes the CDC saying "we know of 148 cases". The CDC, as part of DHSS, gathers US Statistics, but could conceivably be aware of foreign statistics. I'll see if I can figure this out some other way. --JayHenry (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article goes pretty suddenly from his ostracism from school to his worldwide celebrity status. Maybe some more details could be included? (His first public speech, early appearances, etc.)

  That's a good thought, I think I can do this. --JayHenry (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• In the early 1980s, AIDS was known as gay-related immune deficiency... Was this worldwide? My impression is that it happened to hit gay communities in the US, but did not follow the same pattern in, say, Europe.

  The term AIDS wasn't coined until 1982. It's my understanding that the disease was discovered because of the gay communities in San Francisco and New York and only later identified as being present worldwide. I don't believe there was parallel discovery by European researchers under a different name. --JayHenry (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for working so hard on this very important article. – Scartol • Tok 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Improper use of an adjective?

Ahem. "[A] very nervous White" seems to be a strange thing to say in an encyclopedia. How does anyone know that he was nervous? (Perhaps it's mentioned in the cited material, but I can't find the article mentioned, so I have to question anything other than a statement from the allegedly anxious person himself.) Paperxcrip (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it is cited and the source actually was written from White's interview about the day. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is a direct quote, it should be formatted as such. As it stands, it reads very awkwardly and I concur with Paperxcrip's initial query on the matter. - Ageekgal (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It was put into quotes. This article passed featured article status virtually intact from where it is now. That was not an issue at the time, and it seems a trivial matter now, considering the sentence is sourced. That nothing else in the sentence was questioned seems odd. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I'm not sure I follow your last ("...seems odd.") comment. - Ageekgal (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I just thought it odd that the reference to White being very nervous was questioned but not the end of the sentence that said "were unafraid to shake White's hand", which is also in the source, btw. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The wording just makes the sentence read oddly, to me (and apparently at least one other person.) I don't think anyone was questioning whether Ryan was indeed visibly nervous, although the fact the source isn't available online does make it (slightly more) difficult to validate that it's a direct quote from the source material. - Ageekgal (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That it wasn't available online is and was never an issue as far as the sourcing being acceptable, nor was it questioned regarding availability at the time of the FA review. It is verifiable, it isn't required that it be verifiable online. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Apparently, my changes are limited to 20 seconds before they are automatically made. Anyway, a quote from Reagan, much less a boxed, highlighted quote from Reagan is completely antithetical to the lessons of Ryan White as the 'poster boy' for HIV/AIDS, and is, in fact, very insulting. Why not put quotes from Adolph Hitler ca. 1934-1936 where he describes his 'concern' for the Jews on the page of Anne Frank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.108.56 (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely. The article itself outlines how Reagan's stance on AIDS changed, largely in part to Ryan White's involvement. It also details how White spoke in front of Reagan's AIDS Commission, co-hosted the after-Oscars party with the Reagans and spent time with them. More specifically in the article, it says "On the day of the funeral, former president Reagan—who had been widely criticized] for failing to mention AIDS in any speeches until 1987 although he had spoken on the issue in press conferences beginning in 1985—wrote a tribute to White that appeared in The Washington Post. Reagan's statement about AIDS and White's funeral were seen as indicators of how greatly White had helped change perceptions of AIDS."

Were seen as indicators of how greatly White had helped change perceptions of AIDS. The quote is not only proper, it would be remiss to omit it. Four months after White's death, The Ryan White Care Act was signed. There is no greater indicator of the effect Ryan White had than to detail how, in a matter of a handful of years, he changed the viewpoint of even the President who at one point, would not speak in public about AIDS. Sorry, dude, you're simply wrong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Broken Link

The website http://www.ryanwhite.com is no longer in service. I highly suggest that all of the links, and references be removed that forward to this website. Please leave your thoughts. -- Rttam^TN_C 01:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's quite premature. In the past, there have been times when the site has not been available online and has displayed as it does right now, and has come back online. There are a lot of reasons why that might happen and it has been our practice on this page to leave the url in hidden text in anticipation of the possible or probable return of the site. It was still active as of Saturday when it was last cached by Google. There is no mandate to take this out so quickly. The article is well watched by those of us who worked on it to attain its featured article status. If it becomes apparent that the website is not being moved to a new server or host or is just not coming back, then it will be removed as hidden text. There is also time to wait before searching out a different source for his birthdate. There is only one actual link or reference actively being used from the site. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the domain registration lapsed and got swallowed by a cyber squatter. Let's give it some time to see if they get it back. The timeline is still available on the Internet Archive[1]. In a worst-case scenario I believe it's possible to reconstruct most of this from the associated press stories although I don't have on-demand access to their archives anymore. --JayHenry (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So sayeth the person who really worked it up to featured status. I more or less just babysit. The only real thing that is cited from the website is the timeline/birth date. Hi there, JayHenry. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wildhart! Thanks for watching the page so closely so I can spend my time zoned out! Do you happen to know if there's a guideline somewhere about citing InternetArchive version of pages? I made a New Years Resolution in 2009 to never again look at the Manual of Style and so far I've successfully made it 11 months... I thought I had cited some other stuff from ryanwhite.com, but I guess not. I might just make a note that "the original site is currently down, but a copy is available at InternetArchive" unless someone can find evidence of the proper way to do it. --JayHenry (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much a guideline as just additions to the already existing citation template. There's a citation generator tool here, but to make it easy on you (me?), use this: <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ryanwhite.com/pages/timeline.html |title=A Timeline of Key Events in Ryan's Life |accessdate=2009-12-02 |publisher=Ryanwhite.com |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20071012032359/www.ryanwhite.com/pages/timeline.html |archivedate=2007-10-12}}</ref> and for the homepage, {{cite web |url=http://www.ryanwhite.com |title=Ryan White |accessdate=2009-12-02 |publisher=Ryanwhite.com |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20071012032344/www.ryanwhite.com/ |archivedate=2007-10-12}} can be used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah interesting! I didn't know about those parameters. I guess that's probably the best solution, right? --JayHenry (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the best solution, and it makes this matter resolved! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

'Gay' vs 'homosexual'

"Homosexual" is a clinical term, "gay" is a social term. There are gay communities, but not homosexual communities. Modern style guides also recommend "gay" over "homosexual" as a noun. From the "homosexuality" entry:

Many modern style guides in the U.S. recommend against using homosexual as a noun, instead using gay man or lesbian.[22] Similarly, some recommend completely avoiding usage of homosexual as it has a negative, clinical history and because the word only refers to one's sexual behavior (as opposed to romantic feelings) and thus it has a negative connotation.[22] Gay and lesbian are the most common alternatives.

I therefore suggest the changes seen here: [2]. 67.100.222.184 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Except content in this article is based on citations, some of which rely on clinical sources, all of which say "homosexual". This isn't a page for crusading for political correctness. As for your quote, the spread of AIDS in that community was based on sexual behavior, not romantic feelings. AIDS was never spread by loving someone, only by having sex with them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not suggest that any of the historical quotations be changed. I also agree that the adjective "homosexual" is a clinical term appropriate for clinical applications. But in the modern use of the term by Wikipedia authors, "homosexual" should not be used as a noun to refer to individuals. If Wikipedia's entry on homosexuality is not sufficient, Wikipedia's own style manual should help to clarify. Under "identity," it states: "Avoid the use of certain adjectives as nouns: for example, use black people rather than blacks, gay people rather than gays, disabled people rather than the disabled." Surely, if the style manual does not even allow "gay" as a noun (a rule to which an exception is generally made for the phrase "gays and lesbians"), then the more antiquated use of "homosexual" as a noun should be avoided as well. As for communities being "homosexual," they are such only when referring clinically to a community of biological organisms. When referring to people who interact socially and have an identity, the social term "gay" is more appropriate. Yes, HIV spread in the gay community through homosexual intercourse, but the community does not need to be renamed to something more explicitly sexual because of that. The community entry may be helpful in distinguishing between biological and sociological communities. 67.100.222.184 (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the use of the term here is supported by sources, and it is not about sociological terminology, identity or political correctness. It is about following the sources and sourcing the use. This is about an disease effecting a specific population from behavioral, not political, causes and is not being renamed. At the time of the events in this article, homosexual was the term in use and is rightly used here. No one from LGBT projects have ever objected to the use here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that "homosexual" was used at the time and is still used in a clinical sense in clinical literature today. When directly quoting those sources, I would argue for the use of "homosexual." But when modern authors are writing about the subject in Wikipedia, those authors should use modern terminology. For example, the Negro league baseball article states:

"The Negro leagues were American professional baseball leagues comprising teams predominantly made up of African Americans. The term may be used broadly to include professional black teams outside the leagues....

The term "African American" did not exist in the time of the Negro leagues, but it does exist in the time of Wikipedia. So when referring to the proper title of the leagues, which was defined in the past, we use "Negro," but when current-day Wikipedians write words of their own authorship, they use words of the present: "African American" and "black." Also, a note on "political correctness": this term is primarily used today to disparage what is seen as a fear of offending others. But calling people by the names they wish to be called is not necessarily evidence of fear. It may instead be evidence of respect. 67.100.222.184 (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would add that "gay" wasn't exactly a foreign term at the time, either. The original name for AIDS was "Gay-Related Immune Disease," and Ryan White's own mother, as quoted in the article, used the term "gay community." 67.100.222.184 (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to come in here night after night to respond to this. You really aren't comparing the use of the term "negro" to that of "homosexual"? Sincerely? They also used to use the words "fags" and "queers" but you won't find that in this article. As I said, this article passed featured article easily using this terminology. No one, even reviewers connected with LGBT projects objected. No one else has objected like this. We are talking about clinical behavior in a specific community. The FA reviewers had no issue with it, no one else has an issue with it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I do understand that continually engaging on this topic is tiresome, and I do apologize, but I'll still respond to your points. 1) Yes, I do sincerely believe that both "negro" and "homosexual" are outdated terms that carry significant negative connotations. For evidence of those negative connotations, see this recent CBS poll[3] that found that support for gay rights drops considerably when the word "gay" is simply replaced with "homosexual." And if middle America recoils at the word "homosexual," I suspect gay America does more so. 2) Yes, "queer" is used in this article, and I support it, because it's quoting words used at the time. It would be historical revisionism to change a direct quote. 3) Featured article status does not preclude improvement. 4) Good point, and so I've asked the LGBT project members what they think. 5) I'll adjust my argument a bit here. We are not talking about clinical behavior, and neither is anything quoted as using "homosexual" in this article. The clinical sexual behavior that causes the spread of HIV is not homosexual behavior but is, instead, unprotected anal and vaginal intercourse. Of course, Ryan White taught us that AIDS isn't a gay disease (nor a strictly sexual one). And, further, you can have all the homosexual sex you'd like without getting HIV as long as it isn't unprotected anal. But not even the most clinically-minded person would speak of unprotected anal communities. To test whether an instance of "homosexual" is referring to a person or to a biological function, see if replacing "homosexual" with "gay sexual" results in something you've ever heard of. "Homosexual activity" and "homosexual behavior" easily become "gay sexual activity" and "gay sexual behavior." But a search for "gay sexual community" results in fewer than a dozen Google hits, half of which are pornographic. But like I said, I know this is a tiresome discussion, so I've asked the LGBT project members what they think. If you can think of an even better third party to refer questions to, let me know. 67.100.222.184 (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm someone else, and I have an issue with it. Three points, as briefly as I can: (1) FA status isn't indicative of perfection, nor should it be used as an excuse for not improving the article. (2) The word homosexual when used as a noun is indeed widely considered offensive (and perhaps similarly anachronistic as Negro, although speculation on that point is rather beside the point). Its use is deprecated in various major reference works, such as dictionaries and style guides. While homosexual functions grammatically as an adjective in the phrase "homosexual community", it is arguably still doing the work of a noun in that context since the phrase arguably refers to a "community of homosexuals" [sic]. At best, it isn't a case of an adjective being applied to a whole group (e.g., a "large community" or a "cohesive community") but rather to its individual members. (3) The word population could be substituted for community. This wouldn't be a perfect fix, but it would sound fully "clinical" (to use your word) rather than juxtaposing a clinical term with a word like community, which has cultural connotations. Rivertorch (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm another someone else - and a part of the gay community - and I have an issue with it as well. I totally agree that the use of "homosexual" is clinical and except for instances where clinical terms in this article are appropriate, "gay" should be used instead. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've asked someone else to look at this. Not gonna spend more time on this, except to say don't be disingenuous here, yes, the word "queer" is used - in an example of a harassing taunt thrown at White. Surely you didn't think I meant use it as a positive word?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it only in the lead that this is an issue? If so, the first sentence of the second paragraph can be rewritten as "In the early 1980s, AIDS was first identified as a "gay disease", initially given the name "gay cancer", and was strongly identified with male homosexuality until other prominent HIV-infected people, such as White, Magic Johnson, the Ray brothers and Kimberly Bergalis, appeared in the media to advocate for more AIDS research and public education to address the epidemic." --Moni3 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to repost my comment regarding this from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, so here goes: Looking at the two references used in the "Ryan White and public perception of AIDS" section, the NY Times article [4] uses the word "gay" many more times than the word "homosexual". I don't have access to And the Band Played On, but the article (which appears well sourced) uses "gay community" rather than "homosexual community". So the sources seem to support a change to "gay" (except in direct quotes using "homosexual" of course), and they certainly don't seem to prohibit the change. Siawase (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Two issues need to be taken into consideration here. First, this is a featured article and if there is any chance of keeping it this way, the component of brilliant writing needs to remain a part of it. That means word diversity. "Gay" or "homosexual" used too many times in the same sentence or paragraph when the words basically mean the same thing and can be interchanged is clumsy writing. Secondly, I do not know how "homosexual" is pejorative and I am flagrantly homosexual. It is a more clinical term than "gay", so its use varies depending on the purpose, but I don't know where this perceived potential offense comes from. We have an entire suite of articles based on "queer". --Moni3 (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. There were two sides here. One was a nearly complete changeover from the use of the word "homosexual" to the use of the word "gay". That this is a featured article is part of the consideration from me that the terminology needs to depend on the sources. There is a happy medium here to be explored. This is not an essay on what others perceive as political correctness, thus my points about the sociological equivalent being made between the use of "homosexual" to "negro". Not the same thing. If the contention that the word "homosexual" is clinical, then clinically referring to sexual behavior needs to be considered. So there are situations where the use of "gay" may be acceptable, but this article is not the vehicle for being pointy and making wholesale terminology changes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the lead and two brief mentions, the words "homosexual" and "gay" appear in the section "Ryan White and public perception of AIDS". In this section the word "homosexual" is used exclusively in the prose. "Gay" is only used in the wikilinked "gay-related immune deficiency" and a direct quote. When it comes to diversity of wording, if anything "homosexual" is repeated over and over right now. By the way, I don't have an opinion on which is less pejorative, but I looked at the sources since Wildhartlivie said: "content in this article is based on citations, some of which rely on clinical sources, all of which say 'homosexual'." But the sources actually used in the section that deals with the gay and homosexual angle are not clinical, nor do they predominantly use the word "homosexual". Siawase (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have And the Band Played On. In fact, I wrote the article. Let me know if you want me to look anything up. --Moni3 (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first two sentences in that section is sourced to And the Band Played On. I assume that "homosexual problem" is a time accurate direct quote, but I wonder about "homosexual communities", since the And the Band Played On article uses "gay community/ies" exclusively. I don't know if there's anything specific to look up though, since the use is pervasive throughout that article. I guess if you could confirm if it is in the book as well? Siawase (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I take no issue with quoting a "homosexual problem," or any other quoted term from the time, but I don't see why, without quotation, modern Wikipedians should themselves refer to gay people as "homosexuals" when numerous style guides are in agreement that "homosexual" should not be used as a noun. Also, while I wouldn't completely use a book from 1987 to define modern style, "And The Band Played On" contains zero references to a "homosexual community" and at least 100 references to a "gay community," as per Google Books. 66.167.48.33 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Also, note that And the Band Played On was written by a gay man from within the gay community. It's obvious from how this article uses "homosexual" so frequently as a noun, that it hasn't had enough previous influence from the gay community. Hopefully, that will now change. Let's see this article become even better still by the correct use of "homosexual" and the incorrect use changed appropriately. Political correctness has nothing to do with it. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm back to this. What's the incorrect use? According to what source? --Moni3 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think word diversity is important, especially for a featured article but I also think there is a lot to be said for common parlance, and it's jarring to use "homosexual community" and "gay community" in the same section. In most cases, I'd prefer to use "gay community" as a more commonly understood term, particularly in the lead section, and "homosexual" (or extensions of the word) to convey or paraphrase an attitude of the time. I think a couple of sentences need to be reworked, not only because they contain the word "homosexuals", although it's true to say that word drew me to them.

I question "White's diagnosis demonstrated to many that AIDS was not exclusive to homosexuals." Did it really demonstrate that the disease was not exclusive to a particular community, or did it demonstrate that it was not exclusively contracted through sexual contact? Did it really demonstrate to "many" or did a significant number of people remain prejudiced? His diagnosis was a private thing, his publicity came later, and "many" is vague. I would suggest something like "The publicity that developed around White's case demonstrated that HIV infection could occur without sexual contact." Not perfect, but something like that.

"White and his family strongly rejected the language of "innocent victim" because the phrase was often used to imply that homosexuals with AIDS were "guilty" is a very wrong sentence in my opinion. Reading through the source article, this sentence is not supported, and it seems to twist Mrs White's comments. She doesn't mention "homosexuals" in this context, she does not use the word "guilty", and her comment about "innocent" was a very compassionate criticism of comments attributed to Kimberley Bergalis who testified before Congress that she "hadn't done anything wrong." Our interpretation is stronger than what is actually said and I think her comments are powerful and eloquent enough to stand on their own. We could say "White's mother disapproved of comments that described some people afflicted with AIDS as "innocent" and told The New York Times "Ryan always said..... " Again, not perfect. Rossrs (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"White's diagnosis demonstrated to many that AIDS was not exclusive to homosexuals." Did it really demonstrate that the disease was not exclusive to a particular community, or did it demonstrate that it was not exclusively contracted through sexual contact? Did it really demonstrate to "many" or did a significant number of people remain prejudiced?" Yes, the gay community felt very strongly that White's illness *did* demonstrate AIDS was not exclusive to a particular group of people. Amongst those who remained prejudiced, they remained prejudiced by-and-large because they *wanted* it to be a gay-disease in order to either give them a better reason to be prejudiced against homosexuals or to promote their own cause and/or agenda. But it wasn't as if White having AIDS suddenly changed the face of AIDS - it took time, but his illness *did* make a difference in how AIDS was thought of and perceived . I remember once hearing an educated, well-known and repspected pastor and Bible scholar saying, "AIDS is lodged in the rectum, that's why it's a homosexual, sodomite disease". And that was *after* Ryan White died. As far as the statement below claiming there was "resentment" amongst PWAs that it took White's illness to bring the proper attention to AIDS amongst the mainstream media and the rest of America - that's untrue. There was general anger that there had been people dying of the disease for so long and no one outside the gay community seemed to care. There was definite anger toward the Reagan administration, the Moral Majority and what was seen as the self-righteous extreme right. But actual "resentment" from PWA's in the gay community toward a child dying of the disease many they knew were dying of? Not. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

People can choose to be ignorant and bigoted and I understand that there were people who wanted the disease to be a "gay disease" because it suited their prejudice. They still exist. In Ryan White's time, yes I know his case helped bring discussion into the broader community and helped changed attitudes. I just don't think the sentence is worded as well it could be. There was a lot of anger towards the Reagan administration, and towards other groups who failed to address the problem in a timely manner, but I think the comment about resentment is valid. "There was general anger that there had been people dying of the disease for so long and no one outside the gay community seemed to care." I agree completely. After so many people had died and were still dying, without the government or the public responding to any significant degree, it must have been frustrating that a young boy aroused such empathy, when the main thing that set him apart was the manner in which he had contracted the virus. I think that is what was meant by that comment. I don't see anything in the comment to suggest that any resentment was directed at White personally, but rather at the apathy that had previously existed. Rossrs (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the comment differently that you, apparently (and that's "read" in the present tense). Also, as someone who is part of the LGBT community and has been intimately aware of AIDS and those with it since the early-80s, I can tell you that "resentment" isn't really accurate. Look, I've known more than 100 friends who have died from the disease - at least 2/3 of them dying in the 1980s; the remainder in the early to mid-1990s before the drugs got better and more effective over the long-term. There was a time when I was attending multiple funerals every month. I still know a good number of men who remain HIV positive but have somehow stayed alive with the disease for more than two decades. I can testify as a first hand-witness that it wasn't "resentment" people in the gay community were feeling, it was anger. And certainly not because of Ryan White's openness of what it was like for someone outside the gay community to contract the disease. The anger was directed largely at the US government as well as those who insisted that those who did get sick and die, died because of who they were and were being punished. Ryan White and Elizabeth Glaser put a new face to AIDS, most certainly, but I know of *no one* in the gay community (and as someone who is actually a part of the gay community, I think I would have a better perspective than someone who isn't no matter how close they think they are/were to those in the queer world) who felt "resentment" over the attention AIDS received after their AIDS diagnoses became public knowledge. If anything, the gay community and those with HIV/AIDS within the gay community were elated that something was now going to be done, while skeptical it might be short-lived and/or selective, yet still quite angry that when it was a "gay disease", it wasn't important enough for the POTUS to acknowledge. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You're singing to the choir. The community anger was well placed, and the elation was well placed and the scepticism too. I know that every time a PWA was presented in the public forum without a negative connotation, it benefited everyone and that the openness of Ryan White's case benefitted a lot of people. Maybe we do read the comment differently, but to me, the comment about resentment is related to a specific group of individuals in a "closed-shop" environment, in a specific context, and there's nothing to say it was the only emotion/attitude that they conveyed or even that it was the strongest. Individuals can be cynical and don't always present the most noble sentiment. Resentment can be conveyed by some people more easily than anger, especially if they've been worn down and marginalised over time. I don't doubt that it could have been part of the attitude of the people described, and it's just one attitude out of many. I didn't meet those particular people, and I'm prepared to consider the interpretation of someone who met them. If it was being applied to the gay community as a whole, I'd disagree with it, but that's not the case. Rossrs (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Rossrs. It wasn't a comment specific to the gay community. There were women, straight men, IV drug users, one woman who contracted it from her baby's father and her baby was also positive. It was a wide group. And who is to say that they didn't feel resentment. The words were "I resent the fact that White is accepted and I'm not." Those people weren't particularly associated with any group except living with HIV or AIDS. And it isn't a matter of keeping count of how many funerals or persons one knows. I'm sure everyone close to this has been to more than their fair share of funerals. I used to carry those little programs they have at funerals in my purse until it got too full. White's was one of them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the last paragraph, if you don't feel the New York Times source supports the sentence, other sourcing can be found to support that sentence. It's basically true. The prevalent feeling in the area where White lived did have the viewpoint that AIDS was a gay disease and personally, I went to public speeches where White and his mother espoused that very point - that guilt or innocence was not a factor. It was one of the core teaching emphases of the AIDS Task Force with which I worked at one time in the mid-1990s. It was the basis of talks that were given by my friend who died in 1995 to community groups. That can be supported if that particular source isn't acceptable. As for the second paragraph, both. That White was once described as the poster boy for HIV because he was a straight, non-sexually active boy who was not an IV drug user was a huge factor as well. And I can say that the people who worked with ATF-R talked about that often. There was a certain level of resentment amongst the persons with AIDS that it took this boy to put a legitimate face on AIDS that wasn't afforded to them prior to that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think the source supports the sentence in the last paragraph, and I also think that what Mrs White said in that interview was approaching the issue from a different angle to what is conveyed. I don't dispute that the sentiment presented is true, or that it can be attributed to her, but to use it in its current form, I think it does need additional sourcing. The second paragraph, well yes but I think it showed HIV wasn't always sexually contracted, as opposed to "homosexually" contracted, although I appreciate that was probably the main prejudice he faced. If Ryan wasn't the first person to demonstrate a non-sexually contracted infection, he was probably the first person to be recognised on a world wide level. I don't think the sentence is well written or well worded, but in essence I guess it does represent the prevailing attitude of the time. I was thinking about it from my own observations - by the time Ryan White became well known, there had already been a couple of Australians (Suzi Lovegrove and her son, infected in her womb) to prove that it wasn't solely a gay disease, and a child Eve Van Grafhorst, who had been infected via blood products and who was being hounded out of Australia at about the same time Ryan White was being persecuted in his town. So, at least some of the hysteria derived from fear of the virus, general ignorance and prejudices that included, but was not restricted to, homophobia. There was some public knowledge regarding the pathology of the virus that predated Ryan, but granted, for a lot of people it probably was seen as a "gay disease" (and also "someone else's problem"), until Ryan. Rossrs (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Folks, please note I was misquoted. I said quite succinctly that "There was a certain level of resentment amongst the persons with AIDS that it took this boy to put a legitimate face on AIDS that wasn't afforded to them prior to that." I did not say there was resentment toward White, but against the circumstances which led to making White a poster boy for AIDS. I know that because it was a frequent topic in the support groups I facilitated. So we're given to accept that a person heard a minister characterize AIDS as a disease of the rectum, but not accept that I also heard groups of persons with AIDS express resentment toward the circumstances that led to White making having AIDS a sympathetic cause, is wrong? Pah. I facilitated two support groups from 1990 until 1996. I heard it plenty. If you don't believe me, that's your misfortune, or perhaps lack of hands-on involvement or being in the midst of plain talking HIV-positive persons who weren't initimidated from saying what was on their minds. He was called a poster boy for social acceptance of AIDS in "To a poster child, dying young" in the U.S. News and World Report on April 16, 1990. As for this article lacking input from the LGBT projects, Moni3 wrote above that she is "flagrantly homosexual" and worked on this article as it was written, so that assertion is not valid. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Source

I wanted to pass along a potential source for this article, the Ryan White Unit of Study that was developed for grades 6-8 by The Children's Museum of Indianapolis. It may have some more details in the background sections that could be useful here. If anyone would like any further, specific information, let me know and it's possible our curators could find something in our archives. LoriLee (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC):

"Ryan White was born at St. Joseph Memorial Hospital" {{fact}}? In his autobiography does not. In the interenet could not find. The question arose in the Turkish wiki.. Thank you in advance.--178.123.4.193 (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

'The boy who saved me from myself': Elton John on the young friend whose death from AIDS turned around his own life

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2173528/Elton-John-book-Singer-pays-tribute-AIDS-victim-Ryan-White.html I think it might be worth adding some points to the article from this news story. 146.90.134.98 (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent Citations

I read a bit of this page today and was very impressed by the amount of citations! Keep up the good work Limited Atonement (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

this story infuriates me! I know that my one voice isn't enough but maybe it'll inspire one of many friend on Facebook. I feel like sending a letter to those idiots at his school too! I'm so mad!

I'm Lori Williams willial64@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.119.18 (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ryan White. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20114862,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326213042/http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/AIDS-at-21-Media-Coverage-of-the-HIV-Epidemic-1981-2002-Supplement-to-the-March-April-2004-issue-of-CJR.pdf to http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/AIDS-at-21-Media-Coverage-of-the-HIV-Epidemic-1981-2002-Supplement-to-the-March-April-2004-issue-of-CJR.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513122059/http://www.childrensmuseum.org/themuseum/powerofchildren/html/index.html to http://www.childrensmuseum.org/themuseum/powerofchildren/html/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060812112907/http://www.ryanwhite.com/ to http://www.ryanwhite.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516033815/http://www.iudm.org/about/history.php to http://www.iudm.org/about/history.php

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion for the wider community

This discussion has occurred off the article talk page, but I feel as if it needs to be opened to the community who are interested in this article. First, an original research template was added to the article lead here. I removed it because 1) it is the lead and 2) it is directly from the article section here. The editor returned it [5]. A discussion ensued and I am copying it over here for wider consideration, since it has taken a personal turn regarding my intentions.

Two points. The first is WP:DTTR - don't template the regulars. The second point is that it is not original research to state that AIDS was first diagnosed in the United States in the gay community. I have no idea where you got that perception, but the infection was first called gay-related immune deficiency. That fact is thoroughly covered in the section Ryan White#Ryan White and public perception of AIDS and is sourced there. We don't routinely demand citations in the lead section of the article when it is covered and sourced in the article. So your sticking in a OR template in the lead is both incorrect and ignores the rest of the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

First you rmvd the OR tag without even an edit summary. That's very poor editing to say the least, and so you deserve the template, regardless of DTTR. The point of DTTR is that established editors should know what the h*ll they're doing... Second, I didn't OR tag the statement that it was first identified in the gay cmmty; I OR'd the causal link regarding the public perception. You didn't prove the causality in the body text, either. I'd be happy to put an OR tag down there, if you like... • Ling.Nut 04:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no policy that demands an edit summary, so your perception of whether I "deserve" a template is specious. Second, you did not make clear what it was that you templated, you just stuck in the template and failed to explain your rationale on the talk page. Third, I'm totally unclear what your point is. "AIDS was known as gay-related immune deficiency, because the disease had first been identified among primarily homosexual communities in New York City and San Francisco." is clarified by the link to Gay-related immune deficiency and the connection is sourced there. What the hell else would one conclude except that it was first diagnosed in the gay community and it was first called GRID? It continued to be referred to as a "gay disease" long after it had spread to other demographics. Sorry, you are being vague and picky regarding "proof". BTW, the article covers that too, and it is sourced. I have asked another editor to look at your tags and render an opinion on your points. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC

As you mention above, HIV/AIDS existed first in the gay community, and later spread to others. That is distinct from the article's assertion that it was called GRID merely because it was discovered first in the gay community. Your assertion leaves open the possibility that it was equally distributed among different segments of the population, but doesn't verify that fact (if it is true)... that word "because" is the part you didn't document. Sorry if I am being too firm... and sorry if I mistook your lack of edit summary for truculence... as for policies, DTTR is not a policy; neither are the guidelines regarding edit summaries... meanwhile though, please clarify the prose in your article.. I could say more, but that's enough I guess.. going to work now... • Ling.Nut 05:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Wildhartlivie asked me to comment, so ... I don't think it's correct to say that "because" makes the sentence original research. The lead section is a summary of the article, and it correctly summarizes a point made in the article. Therefore if the "OR" tag should be placed anywhere it should be in the section of text from which that part of the lead is taken, not in the lead itself. In the article, the comment links to gay-related immune deficiency which explains that this was a name originally proposed, but ultimately discarded as being too specific in defining the demographic impacted by the virus. It sources this information to The History of AIDS and ARC. It seems to be quite well supported in my opinion, although I think the Ryan White article should cite the same information to the same source. The word "because" isn't used, but the context is identical and makes it clear that the early perception was that although nobody really understood what the disease was, it was seen as a gay disease as it was first recognised in the gay male communities of San Francisco and New York City. The word in the Ryan White article is not "discovered" and I don't think Wildhartlivie has used that word in discussion, unless I've missed it. In any case, we're talking about what's in the article. The lead uses "diagnosed" and the article uses "identified". There is no doubt that it was first "diagnosed" and "identified" among gay males. "Discovered" would, as you say, have a different meaning and be unacceptable here, but that's not the word being used. It's also relevant to source to material and perceptions that were applicable during White's lifetime. The purpose of the sentence in the article is to place Ryan White's case against the historical background of bigotry and misinformation that he had to deal with, and White's fight against the stigma that resulted from the common misconception that the virus targetted only gay males is precisely what makes him notable against the huge number of other people who also died as a result of the same virus. I think it needs to be cited, and when it is cited, there is no problem with the text in its current form. Rossrs (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And the article does not say it was called GRID because it was first discovered in the gay community. There also is no support to say it existed first in the gay community. Fact is, there is little to support that the infection was prevalent in any other populations to start. Also bear in mind that this point does not translate to other locales besides the US. It says quite clearly that it was first identified there, there is no assertion made about where it was first discovered. There is a huge difference between asserting that something was first discovered somewhere and saying that it was first identified in a given population. It was first identified in the gay community in the US, and yes, that is the basis for why it was first called GRID. Why else would it be called gay-related immune deficiency? Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. First, I'm not saying you're right or wrong; I'm saying your sourcing is weak. Second, I'm sure you have a great attachment to this article. You may want to bear that in mind as you consider your position and your actions. Third, the point I am trying to make to you is that you are speaking from inner convictions. You have not, via your sourcing, established anything at all — or at least, I haven't seen it. If you wanna say "Before White, AIDS was a disease widely associated with the male homosexual community, because it was first diagnosed there" and "In the early 1980s, AIDS was known as gay-related immune deficiency, because the disease had first been identified among primarily homosexual communities in New York City and San Francisco"... well... you have two choices, depending on what you perceive Wikipedia to be: IF you share my conviction that Wikipedia should merely gather verifiable (and verified!) bits of information, then you need to go out and find sources which precisely repeat the meaning of your assertions. If you perceive Wikipedia to be... I dunno what... a place where some "commonsense" meme should be disseminated to the public as some sort of "public service" because ... well, because.. you have a deep conviction in your mind that "dammit, I'm right!"... then.. why, you are doing everything precisely correctly... I said I would reply tonight; I hope you see this 'cause I hate those damn talkback templates... Sometime in the next few weeks I will try to spend some time digging up sources BUT I am going to be very busy in real life again starting.. pretty much now.... It's highly likely that you think I'm full of crap. I hereby extend a very friendly invitation for you to stop thinking about me and go read your sources. I mean, you know, READ them. Carefully. See if they assert what you assert. 09:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a personal issue. It is totally a matter of it being already covered. I see no logic in your argument. The pertinent section of the article states:

In the early 1980s, AIDS was known as gay-related immune deficiency, because the disease had first been identified among primarily homosexual communities in New York City and San Francisco. At the start of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States, the disease was thought to be a "homosexual problem" and was largely ignored by policy makers. White's diagnosis demonstrated to many that AIDS was not exclusive to homosexuals. In his advocacy for AIDS research, White himself always rejected any criticism of homosexuality. This firmly establishes back up for the statement in the lead: "Before White, AIDS was a disease widely associated with the male homosexual community, because it was first diagnosed there."

It isn't a personal thing to extrapolate that something called GRID (gay-related immune deficiency) would be called that for a solid reason. I cannot for the life of me understand how you could doubt that. Together with the article on gay-related immune deficiency, it leaves no doubt. Since GRID is wikilinked, go read that article. The statement is sourced to "The History of AIDS and ARC" at the LSU Law Center. But as far as I'm concerned the connection is a no-brainer. I've brought this to the article talk page for others to comment.

Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If I were Ryan's mother I would have responded to President Reagan's little speech by saying "Thank you Mr. President, But NO THANK YOU, Your little speech came TEN YEARS TOO LATE" Had he acted when he should have we might have had a lot more going for us in the fight against AIDS a lot earlier in the game, He has blood on his hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.94.103 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The Whites has corresponded with the Reagan's. Ryan's last appearance was at an Oscar's party where Ryan presented an award to Reagan for his work on AIDS. Reagan had been criticized for not doing enough until announcing the presidential commission in latter party of his presidency. Apparently Nancy Reagan approached Jeanne White and said that Ryan wasn't looking good. They tried to find a hospital bed for Ryan in Los Angeles and couldn't so returned to Indiana and directly to Riley Children's Hospital. This article is incorrect about future U.S. president Donald Trump. He arrived with Michael Jackson at the house in Cicero, Indiana following Ryan's death. But he did not stay and attend the funeral. 2001:1970:4F67:B800:C5AC:5C26:6A5D:E868 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Error?

Hello from Belarus, colleagues :) In preparation for the nomination of Russian article in "Good article" found weirdness:
In this article it is told:

When he was six days old, doctors diagnosed him with severe Hemophilia A,

In the autobiographical book says:

Which is so slow that if I got cut, I could bleed to death, just waiting for my blood to clot. That nearly happened to me, only three days after I born, because no one ever expected ne to have hemophilia

In the «Ryan White's Testimony before the President's Commission on AIDS» read:

When I was three days old, the doctors told my parents I was a severe hemophiliac

Maybe the article is wrong? What is written in the Source number 3? (Resnik, Susan (1999). Blood Saga: Hemophilia, AIDS, and the Survival of a Community. University of California Press)? Who has to it an access, check up please!
I'm sorry for my bad English :)--SergeyA. (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody watches this Featured article?

 Fixed...--SergeyA. (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

People also keep trying to say that Donald Trump attended the funeral in Indianapolis. That's not accurate. Trump and Jackson arrived at the White family home in Cicero, Indiana following his death. Jackson remained in Indiana for the funeral but Trump departed without attending the funeral. 72.142.92.197 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an annoying myth based on a few photo and short video clip of Trump and Jackson arriving at the house in Cicero, Indiana. Plus Trump lied to people for years saying that he saved Ryan White. Sheesh. 2001:1970:4F67:B800:C5AC:5C26:6A5D:E868 (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ryan White Controversy/knowledge of AIDS

This article seems to omit the fact that the publicity of Ryan White's case was enormously controversial at the time: Not because Ryan White had done anything wrong, he hadn't of course, but rather that Ryan White HADN'T received HIV from homosexual contact. I think this controversy should be reflected in the article. Also, concerning the first knowledge of the disease of AIDS: About 10 years ago, I met a man who had been working in the Congo in about 1960. (at the time, it was called the Belgian Congo). He said that a disease called the "slim disease" was very well known there at that time, and it was eventually determined that "slim disease" and AIDS were the same thing. So, it's not accurate to say that AIDS was first diagnosed in America in the 1980's. Epanue (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

These articles still appear as if we were in the 1980s. It takes news articles and personal stories of the time and treat it as holy scripture. Of course we now know the first cases likely took place in the Congo nearly a hundred years earlier. We also now now of cases of AIDS in the U.S. that occurred long before the first reports from the CDC in 1981. In some examples tissue samples were kept from patients who died without the cause of the illnesses being understood at the time. Later when it was possible scientists were able to confirm that the patient was HIV positive. An analysis of patient charts and their disease progress also indicated they had AIDS. 2001:1970:4F67:B800:C5AC:5C26:6A5D:E868 (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)