Talk:Blood donation restrictions on men who have sex with men

Claim missing in reference

The introduction reads, "However, there is a small percentage of the population at 3% who still will not test positive after 3 months with serology testing.". The supposed reference for this statement is San Francisco AIDS Foundation homepage where no such figure can be found. In fact, there is a contradictory figure: "12 weeks (3 months) after infection, about 98% of people will have enough antibodies to test positive.". Nowhere in literature have I seen anything akin even to 1% not yet testing positive a year after infection. I move that this sentence is cut unless an alternative reference can be provided. (and even then, it is highly questionable). Perhaps the statement was not meant for HIV however. E.g. for Hepatitis C from CDC's homepage, up to 3% may no have seroconverted after 6 months. We could replace the HIV figure with this one, but then the introduction has to be rewritten to discuss HCV. C. lorenz (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at it more carefully, the source for the CDC claim seems to one of several epidemiological books with almost literally the same statement. These books in turn however reference Alter MJ et al. 1991 or 1992 - neither of which supports the claim. The most common one here being, Serum Hepatitis C Virus Sequences in Posttransfusion Non-A, Non-B Hepatitis. I was not able to find any viable alternative source for such a tail estimate. C. lorenz (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

bias

I was looking for the medical reasons for this policy and found this to be very biased in favor of lifting the ban. Both sides should be presented, not just one. And you can't call me a homophobe because I am one of you. --68.118.188.188 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Kindly substantiate the claims and give examples. Some topics naturally do have evidence primarily in favor of one conclusion over the other, and that either conclusion is not as valid is not a bias. One way to make the article *seem* less biased would be to include more thorough consequences of the no-deferral policies. With present state of affairs, there is little signifciant medical support for deferral periods longer than 12 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. lorenz (talk • contribs) 12:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

A heavily used source in this article

The first source used in the article, which is referred to repeatedly, is from Adelante magazine. I'm looking at their website specifically the article archive and I don't see a December 2012 article that covers this topic. It seems like the right kind of material for the magazine, as here's another article on HIV from December 2011 though it doesn't address blood donation. Can anyone confirm that the article we are referencing exists? It seems likely another source could be found for some of the claims, as they aren't unusual statements. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

MSM blood donor controversy#HIV.2FAIDS

I think this section should be reviewed for due weight and context. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sportfan5000 I see what you mean. I made changes to present the what the sources say and to disconnect bits of information which are presented together without drawing a conclusion. The sources themselves make conclusions that MSM and black communities are high risk and a low percentage of the population and therefore need special attention. It is quite fair to say that, and anyone can add content to that effect, but it needs to be done in a straightforward way and with use of sources. It shows respect to minority populations to be forthcoming with the facts, and the text seemed to not be doing that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks much better now. Thank you! Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe statistics from this decade would be helpful? We cite 2005, and 2009. Would it also make sense to note if the trending has changed since 1980s? Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sportfan5000 This would be useful to add if you find a source which presents multi-year information in this way. Otherwise, my opinion is that this would not be helpful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

sentence in the lead

Studies have found, to varying extents, that the potential risk of transfusion of HIV infected blood would increase if MSM were allowed to donate blood.

This seems a bit vague, is it accurate, needed? I'm not sure. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A statement that scientific evidence exists which supports a ban on MSM blood donation is necessary for the lead. I made changes which I think give a clearer presentation of that argument. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

MSM blood donor controversy Intro

The intro is kind of misleading. The only country I can think of that banned gay males from donating blood is China (but they also banned gay females from donating blood as well). This is no longer the policy in China however. Furthermore, blood donation bans apply more to men who have sex with men than it does to gay people. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what your huge campaign has been over this MSM/gay debate and for the most part I'm fine with your changes however the VAST VAST VAST MAJORITY of those who are affected by this blood ban are gay men. Is there a technical difference between MSM and gay men. Barely. So if you want to keep the title MSM blood donor ban fine if you want to change most instances of gay men to MSM fine but you ignoring who is affected by these policies is against NPOV. Yes a few straight people will be affected but realistically how many straight men have sex (meaning oral or anal intercourse) with other men. Not many. How many gay men have sex with men (especially at least once in their life). Probably the vast majority. So please stop trying to act like the difference between MSM and gay men are that big. They are more than miniscule. In terms of statistics I can almost guarantee you the differences are microscopic.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your claim is, bisexual males also have sex with other males and probably at a higher rate than straight males. MSM covers all men who have sex with men regardless of whether they are gay, straight, bi, or asexual. If anything, keeping it as is- goes against NPOV because it talks about how it affects gay people but puts less emphasize on bi, straight, and asexual males who have sex with other males. If anything, it should be more inclusive towards bisexual males since they are actually attracted to other males and likely to have sex with other males. "gay and bi male blood donor controversy" would have to be the title and every mention of "gay men" would have to also be accompanied by "bi men." Also, most of these bans (except china) were directed towards men who have sex with men. Otherwise; all gay males, gay females, and bisexual people would be banned from donating blood. The bans have more to do with sexual behavior than they do sexual attraction. It may not seem like a difference to you, but there is a significant difference. Regardless of how "minuscule" the difference is, changing "gay men" to "MSM" is more accurate by far; which is why it is important that we change how the article is written- so that it isn't misleading. --Prcc27 (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the msm blood ban doesn't affect all gay people; and not all people affected by the ban are gay --Prcc27 (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

My problem isn't that you are trying to make the article more accurate my problem is that you seem to be trying to deny that the motivations behind this are homophobic (and sure if you want biphobic and transphobic (what about transwomen who have sex with men)) stereotypes. Realistically how many straight people are affected? This is not an MSM issue. The blood banks are using that as an excuse its an LGBT issue. I would have been fine with LGBT people having replaced gay men but now Mr. Inclusive you have neglected transwomen who are also affected by the ban what are you going to do now? You can't chalk that up to trying to be clinically accurate. So stop denying this is an issue of discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not denying that it is an issue of discrimination. I'm saying that it is an issue of discrimination based on sexual behavior not sexual attraction. There are currently no bans on women who have sex with women so I don't understand how it is an "LGBT issue" since gay females aren't denied the right to donate blood because the bans only apply to men who have sex with men. Also, straight men are affected. Whether they consent to having sex with another man or if they're raped. They would still be denied the right to donate blood. Also, I never said it wasn't a GBT issue. That's why I left intact the part of the article that says "Many LGBT organizations view the restrictions on donation as based on homophobia...They state the deferrals are based on stereotypes." Furthermore, you say this isn't an MSM issue when it is almost exclusively an MSM issue. Like I said before, discrimination is not occurring on the basis of sexual attraction but rather sexual behavior. Learn the difference please. Not all gay people have sex with men; and not all men who have sex with men are gay. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the term MSM has sometimes been applied to transgender individuals. [1] --Prcc27 (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to ask, if the deferrals are an GLBT issue rather than an MSM issue (which you stated was the case); are female sex partners of men who have sex with men being deferred because the had sex with a gay person or because they had sex with a man who had sex with another man? Are these female sex partners of msm, most of them being straight (probably), experiencing homophobia? If the ban is exclusively because of homophobia, why are gay females who have sex with other females allowed to donate blood, but straight females who have sex with "gay" males deferred? --Prcc27 (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't only an MSM blood ban if it includes transwomen. I can't donate blood and I'm not a man. If you are going to argue that MSM is more inclusive than gay male blood ban than you obviously have to find a term that includes transwomen. Also arguing the difference is between sexual orientation and sexual behavior is important is like acting like you aren't discriminating against a religion because you give them the right to call themselves that but not to worship in their holy sanctuary. Its still discrimination and guess what its still discrimination against LGBT people (especially gay and bisexual men and trans women). So if you are going to argue for inclusion you better find an even better term because calling a transwoman a man is against Wikipedia policy.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

But calling a transwoman a "gay male" is totally acceptable? And could you please provide a source that transwomen are deferred from donating blood if they have sex with a cisman? If there's no evidence that transwomen are deferred for this reason then I don't see how we can mention transwomen in this article anyways. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, if transwomen are being excluded from the article it's definitely not my fault. Here's a quote from the article before I edited it: "They (restrictions) do not otherwise affect women." --Prcc27 (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have two sources two that is according to wikis standards and one that isn't this is to show it is an issue.

http://transgenderequality.wordpress.com/2010/05/ http://transequality.org/Issues/health.html http://www.hhs.gov/ash/bloodsafety/advisorycommittee/publiccomment/national_center_transgender_equality_061110.pdf These are a good start to show you it is a problem.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing sources. It should be noted that transgender people are deferred by practice not by law. It seems as if this is a case-by-case issue and I wouldn't have a problem with the article mentioning how the MSM blood donor ban affects the transgender community. That being said, it still all comes down to MSM because the reason why transgender people are banned is because they are perceived as MSM. So the article could also state that the reason they are deferred is because they are considered to be MSM regardless of whether they actually are a man or not. --Prcc27 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, lets compromise I will cease all discussion on MSM vs. Gay (which I didn't choose) vs. LGBT (which is what I prefer) if this article can be added to the homophobia category. This would allow us to still call it MSM while also addressing that homophobia is the reason why this is so controversial.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the homophobia category..? --Prcc27 (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I add to the bottom of the page a link to the homophobia category which for some reason I've having a hard time linking to on here right now.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated linking

I removed two links, blood donation, that are already linked in the lede. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

LGBT vs GLBT

Whilst "GLBT" might be used in some circles and even perhaps more common, it's completely unrecognised outside of America as far as I know - certainly here in the UK, it's usage is all but non-existent and would serve to generate confusion even amongst the well-informed. There's a reason the LGBT article is called LGBT and not GLBT, and why attempts to change it have never managed to gain any traction! The proper place for a discussion on resolving the issue of having two possible acronyms would be the LGBT talk page, not here.

As an American, I can confirm that GLBT is also completely unrecognized — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.88.240 (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy title

It was suggested a while back that the page be moved [2]. Though I don't think it was wise to move the page to Gay male blood donor controversy, I will move the page to Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy to get rid of the acronym. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried to but it didn't work. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless "gay male blood donor controversy" is the WP:Common name, I don't think that the article should be moved to that title, considering that MSM (men who have sex with men), those who may not identify as gay and/or may have sex with men infrequently, is stressed as an aspect of the donation. But if you are to pursue the article move, you should do it through WP:Requested moves, since the proposed article title has the possibility of being controversial.

On a side note: I added "title" to the heading above so that the heading is clearer as to what the discussion is about. Flyer22 (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a bit of confusion. The article was at "MSM...". There was a RM to "Gay male...", which I closed. There was a consensus in that discussion that the acronym was not desirable, so I performed the move. There was also a (probable) consensus that simply expanding the acronym may be a solution.

Prcc27 objected to the move and explicitly proposed to expand the acronym. I suggested he/she go ahead and move the page to Men who have sex with men.... He/she encountered some technical problem doing the move so I went ahead and did it just now.

If that title isn't good to all then I suggest opening another RM. --Tóraí (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that I misread Prcc27 above; I was sleepy at the time. Anyway, I've clearly struck through my above post. While I noted to Prcc27 before that I know that the term gay can be an umbrella term for all LGBT/non-heterosexual people, I still would have objected to the "gay" or "gay male" move, unless that is the WP:Common name. Flyer22 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support expansion of "MSM" to "men who have sex with men" Anyone with other comments about the title should share them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I would think that MSM blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom should have its acronym expanded too. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Title suggestion

Although this is a few months old, I immediately thought the title was unwieldy. Also not every "controversy" needs the word "controversy" in the title.

Would people be okay renaming simply to "Blood donation by men who have sex with men"? Or, if it's important to highlight the kind of topic covered, "Blood donation policy for men who have sex with men", or "Blood donation restrictions for men who have sex with men". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I second this. Not only is the title unwieldy, but it is not a controversy. The article even states that gays are 12 times more likely to have AIDS and HIV than straight people. That seems like clear reasoning to ban them from donating.HeinrichMueller (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. I changed the title to "Blood donation restrictions on people with male sexual partners" to avoid blacklist restrictions. Paullb (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Paullb, regarding this, I requested that the article be moved back. Like I stated in the request, "Should be discussed first. 'MSM' is specifically about men who have sex with men, not simply people with male sexual partners. And the Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy in the United Kingdom article uses the 'MSM' title as well, although spelled out." After the article is moved back, you can start a WP:Requested moves discussion. We can work out a new name that way if "controversy" in the title is not best. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Revert and discuss I am in favor of proposing a discussion by the usual process at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_a_single_page_move. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, Blue Rasberry , It was discussed, and there were no desenting options so I did it. Let's start the page title change the way you want. The title I changed it to was perfectly fine too. As this isn't a controversy, the current title is inaccurate, so it needs to be fixed. Let's get the process started. (I'm not familiar with using that page to request changes, I'll happy let you start the ball rolling there). What title do you propose? Paullb (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Factual queries about article statements

A couple of article statements feel problematic:

"The MSM population in developed countries tends to have a relatively high prevalence of HIV/AIDS infection"

The citation doesn't seem to contain a statement supporting this claim.

"In the United States in 2005, MSM, African Americans, and persons engaging in high-risk heterosexual behavior accounted for respectively 49%, 49%, and 32% of new HIV diagnoses"

This poorly chosen statistic tends to leave statistically naïve people actively misinformed. While the claim may be true (or at least verifiable) it will tend to be read by a Wikipedia reader as referring to percentages of new cases, or percentage risk of infection for an individual compared to the population as a whole. The bare statistic is meaningless. It doesn't mean anything by itself, really, it's a classic "scare factor" media statistic when used as we currently use it.
For example, it could mean that if we dug down, we'd find that:

• Report/diagnosis rates are higher for these populations (more aware or careful?); or
• African Americans/MSM could be more often under medical supervision or at ER for unrelated reasons, or more often in jobs where blood testing is required (hence higher rate of blood tests); or
• Targeted MSM/AA campaigning has led to lowered report rates by non-MSM/AA's; or
• The population of MSM/AA's compared to all other groups is small enough that this variation is less significant than might be thought (statistically speaking or practically); or
• HIV rates between MSM/AA and the general population are similar within behavioral groups such as "monogamous persons", "non-monogamous persons", "highly non-monogamous persons", or "persons with other behaviors predisposing towards HIV", but MSM/AA have higher proportions of the higher risk groups (hence the actual behavior may be the significant variable not the sexual category); or
• Persons identified as MSM may be more frequently asked to take an HIV test by a sexual partner than non-MSM (due to awareness among the MSM population, or due to awareness of the higher risks inherent in some sexual acts that are stereotypically believed common among MSM and uncommon among non-MSM, for example); or
• These are expected proportions for these populations after correcting for known and potential issues, or if estimates of proportions were incorrect (for example if it happened that MSM were larger than believed due to reporting bias, and actually approached 50% of the population, then 50% of new cases would be completely expected); or
• ?

We have no idea what to make of this statistic really. A bare statistic like this is a very bad idea. The more likely useful statistic here is the new cases rate in each group compared to the general population, or the proportion of each group that are HIV+ compared to the general population. By itself this statistic unintentionally does little more than scare mongering with a dramatic number that really means nothing by itself.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)}

I agree 100%. It is misleading and it is potentially OR/Synthesis. It has to go. It's like the person who wrote this article set out with a clear agenda to frame the issue in a certain anti-gay way, and went directly to primary data to prove his case. This should be brought up with a wikipedia committee, this is unacceptable in its current state, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.236 (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

original research

The following paragraph is OR. It is from the HIV section and in the lead.

In many developed countries HIV is more prevalent among men who have sex with men (MSM) than among the general population.[3]

It is original research the way it is currently used, please find a different source which links AIDS to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.236 (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The source cited is by Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. This seems like an unambiguous statement of fact. Do you doubt its accuracy, or can this be misinterpreted somehow? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Countries

I have eliminated the reference for the Portuguese situation, because the provided link was dead. I don't know either if the information regarding the current situation of Portugal regarding this matter is correct. Recently the President of the Instituto Português do Sangue has stated that homosexual sex between males was an exclusion factor for donating blood (link in Portuguese).

The above unsigned edit is given in history as 19:00, 3 May 2015‎ Januoaxe (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,678 bytes) (-267)‎ . . (→‎List of Countries) (undo | thank)

Thank you, Januoaxe. I have now used your useful link to correct some of our misleading text.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070629190236/http://www.fda.gov:80/oashi/aids/1992policy.html to http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/1992policy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080319073505/http://www.fda.gov:80/Cber/gdlns/tissdonor.htm to http://www.fda.gov/Cber/gdlns/tissdonor.htm#iv
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080221174758/http://www.fda.gov:80/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2002/ANS01140.html to http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2002/ANS01140.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Y!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 01:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120229082212/http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/school-ends-blood-drives-in-protest-of-anti-gay-rules-1.582542 to http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/school-ends-blood-drives-in-protest-of-anti-gay-rules-1.582542

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Is a better citation for Red Cross's reasoning available?

Nevertheless as of May 2016, the American Red Cross reports that the organization is not accepting blood donations from men who have sex with men, because putting the approved proposal into effect requires training and computer upgrades for which several months are needed.

Is there a better citation available for the reasoning here? Because the citation currently points to the eligibility guidelines but there is nothing on that page explaining *any* reasoning for the Red Cross's discrepancy from the Dec. 2015 FDA guidelines, let alone that it is due to "training and computer upgrades." 75.118.209.196 (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hi. To quote the American Red Cross on the cited webpage: "It will take several months for the Red Cross to update computer systems, modify processes and procedures, train staff, and implement these changes which need to be made before donors affected by this change can be accepted for donation." It is under the heading "Lifestyle and Life Events" and the subheading "Donor Deferral for Men Who Have Had Sex With Men (MSM)". It is possible that the link went bad and was fixed after you pointed out that the webpage was missing the statement. 107.77.223.136 (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy. 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://santiagotimes.cl/gays-and-lesbians-in-chile-now-allowed-to-donate-blood/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224145753/http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm to http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm

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) 01:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Article issues - August 2017

Is there a reason why such a basic medical concept as the risk-benefit ratio is not mentioned in this lengthy article? Timeshift (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Some of the content that has sneaked its way in over time is/was truly deplorable. The following unreferenced opinion however took the cake: "In all of the cases of HIV positive donations associated with MSM after the 12-month deferral, the donors had lied about their medical history and would not have been eligible under either criterion". Is this article some old battleground that nobody can bother to monitor and update anymore? Timeshift (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, a neutral point of view means covering mainstream (widespread) and scientific points of view, not the covering of any and every point of view. And I realise it's been discussed previously but the article name/title of "Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy" is a needless contortion to the point where it shouldn't satisfy anyone. My two objections are: a) clearly unnecessarily clunky and unwieldy, and b) use of the word 'controversy'. An improvement off the top of my head is "MSM blood donation restrictions"... succinct and to the point, and far more encyclopedic. Just two of many wikipedia examples demonstrating widespread use of abbreviations: List of LGBT rights articles by region and Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. Imagine if the articles were called "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights articles by region"/"Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights in <country>" and "Epidemiology of Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome". This article's name/title could (and should) use MSM and then provide 'men who have sex with men (MSM)' in full in this article's first sentence with the blue link to that article. I used blood donation over blood donor as it is commonly referred to as blood donation, but not a major issue. Then replace the subjective and needlessly combative 'controversy' with the objective and clear in-context "restrictions". The use of 'controversy' and previous in-article use of 'opponents' is/was needlessly inflammatory and only increases animosity and breeds contempt. It seems too often nowadays, instead of promoting civil debates on valid issues, it seems more and more that the immediate go-to is to turn it in to a negative us-vs-them lowest-denominator polarisation, either in order to subjugate, or through the mis-held belief that debates on issues can only be such if it is referred to in a prism of opponents, argue and controversy. The tone and therefore quality of a debate/article is so much more improved by simple changes in perspective. Instead of 'opponents', use 'advocates of change' or 'advocates of the status quo'. Instead of '<x> argues', use '<x> asserts'. Instead of controversy, in this case, use restrictions. Not only is it moving from a subjective inflammatory accusation/reflection to an objective inert term that is actually clear. We are not the media, we are an encyclopedia - the use of words like opponents, argue and controversy is/was, if nothing else i've already said, just plain lazy. We can be, and when we want to, are, better than that. Timeshift (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Timeshift, this article isn't that active. You can ask at WP:LGBT for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion but no, I don't want to potentially be seen as canvassing (ugh, normally i'm not wp:that sort of contributor). This talk section is, in the main, intended for those who have an edit history with this article - so my edits to article/talk will appear in their watchlist, assuming they are regulars and use it. There are 63 watchers and has a daily view average of 315. Considering what the UK has done/is doing at present and the inevitable subsequent ramifications in other similar western democracies to come as a result, any lack of the article being "active" is without doubt fleeting. I might be bold and rename the article name after several days if there is no substantial/reasoned objection however... how the current article name can rest well with any editor is beyond me. I've laid out a solid para here on article talk and will wait - a satisfactory threshold IMHO. Timeshift (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Timeshift9, per WP:Canvassing, contacting one or more relevant WikiProjects is not a canvassing violation. I do it all the time, especially in the case of an article that does not have an active talk page. And when it comes to watchers of a talk page, that is not a reliable indicator of a talk page's activity because it's often the case that many of the editors are no longer active and/or that they accidentally watchlisted the article and don't care about it or care little about it. I didn't accidentally watchlist this talk page, but I haven't been heavily concerned about the article because, except for this minor tweak, I haven't been editing it and assessing any of its issues. The edit history of a talk page is a more reliable indicator of a talk page's active status than the article's watcher number.

As for renaming the article, WP:Common name needs to be kept in mind. I would oppose any move of the article that does not satisfy any of the WP:Article title policy rules. Since moving the article is likely to be contested, you should start a WP:Requested moves request instead.

I'll go ahead and contact the WP:LGBT about weighing in on this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree "MSM blood donation restrictions" would be an improvement, for the reasons Timeshift stated. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Or else "Blood donation restrictions for men who have sex with men" as suggested a few sections above.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Brainy J, thanks for commenting. Did you see my note at WP:LGBT? Anyway, the title should still be based on whatever the common name is, not on whatever we personally like. And it should still go through an official move request before any move happens. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160117030201/http://pegasus.fmrp.usp.br/projeto/legislacao/portaria_2712_de_12_novembro_2013.pdf to http://pegasus.fmrp.usp.br/projeto/legislacao/portaria_2712_de_12_novembro_2013.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.transfuznispolecnost.cz/get.php?cesta=%20doc%2Fpostupy%2FDop_STL2007_03%20Zp%C5%AFsobilost%20d%C3%A1rce_V6_2012_04_19.doc%20&%20id=318
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AUBEgHEm?url=http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/RiliHaemotherapie2010.pdf to http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/RiliHaemotherapie2010.pdf
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AkVj6mr9?url=http://www5.ha.org.hk/rcbts/File/hh_enquiry.pdf to http://www5.ha.org.hk/rcbts/File/hh_enquiry.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219234640/http://www.ztm.si/sl/krvodajalstvo/kdo_lahko_daje_kri/kdo_nikoli_ne_sme_dati_krvi/ to http://www.ztm.si/sl/krvodajalstvo/kdo_lahko_daje_kri/kdo_nikoli_ne_sme_dati_krvi/

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) 17:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Generally speaking, there was a rough consensus here for a move. Colin M. eventually nuanced his initial opposition, and one of the "opposes" was based on that and nothing else. Combined with the other supports, I think it is fair to say that a consensus to move exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy → Blood donation restrictions on men who have sex with men – This is not a controversy and should be named accordingly. Once renamed, the article can be edited in that light. Paullb (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm doubtful of the claim that "this is not a controversy". For example, if I search nytimes.com for gay men donate blood, two of the first three results are "Orlando Shooting Renews Debate Over Limits on Gay Men Donating Blood" (2016), and "Gay Men Condemn Blood Ban as Biased" (2010). (The third article is about France lifting its ban, and quotes a government official as saying they were ending a "taboo and a form of discrimination".) Colin M (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Colin M._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's a matter of semantics but a controversy is "prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion". I think that it's as much a controversy as marriage equality is. The reality is that men who have sex with men are disciminated again in relation to donating blood and this article should reflect that reality and what the status are in each country. An alternative would be to split into two pages, one that dicsusses the "controversy" aspect and one that describes the current status in countries around the world. Paullb (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Homosexual men blood donor controversy per WP:CONCISE, WP:NATURALNESS and WP:COMMONNAME. The current title is needlessly verbose and pedantic. Yes, I understand the nuance that not all men who have sex with men are necessarily homosexuals, but a man having sex with another man is a homosexual act, and most people will understand the meaning of a simplified title. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree with that suggestion. This was precisely why the questions asked of blood donors have been phrased in terms of sexual activity rather than sexual preference. The responses to the question "are you a homosexual man?" can be quite different from the responses to the question "are you a man who has had sex with other men?" —BarrelProof (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    • My initial reaction was strong opposition as well, but I was surprised to find that, looking at the article's current references, titles referring to 'gay men'/'homosexual men' outnumber those that use 'men who have sex with men' (or a similar phrase) by a pretty enormous margin. I clicked through to 5 randomly chosen sources, and only 1 used 'men who have sex with men' anywhere in the text of the article. So there's a WP:COMMONNAME argument here that can't be easily dismissed. One counter-argument is that high-quality, scholarly sources that cover this topic in depth are much more likely to use the MSM terminology, and we should weight them more heavily than the large number of news sources with relatively superficial coverage. I'm not usually a fan of this style of argument in move discussions, as it can lead to jargon-y titles. Another argument for MSM rather than gay/homosexual is via this line from WP:UCRN: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. I find that argument more compelling, but it's still not a clear-cut case IMO. Colin M (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. Excellent title, excellent slight rescoping Red Slash 21:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The nom is wrong. There clearly is controversy, not over whether there are blood donation restrictions on men who have sex with men, but over whether such restrictions are justified. That said, the proposed title reads better. Srnec (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Agree with Srnec on both counts. Strongly support MSM terminology over "homosexual" per BarrelProof. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Homophobia category

WP:EVADE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is the homophobia category really warranted? The FDA claims it's to keep the blood free from sexual diseases since there is research that seems to prove that LGBT have more sexual encounters raising their risk https://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity. Also the sources claiming homophobia as the cause only loosely follow that claim as "perceived homophobia". Perception and opinions don't necessarily equal factuality. To remove bias that assumes and jumps to conclusions I suggest that category should be taken off the article. Moneyspender (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC) CARM? Really? If it was about number sexual encounters, they'd ask about that. Regardless, reliable sources describe it as such. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC) To be more precise, they give their OPINION that homophobia is the reason. These statements go against WP:NOTOPINION and WP:Advocacy. The article should not be include on way sided opinion pieces or the personal opinions you have that WP:SUBSTANTIATE a conclusion that is based on a view they want to push instead of letting the source WP:MORALIZE. Remember WP:FAPO and so we should have factual evidence instead of just one magazine columnn written in a one sided manner. Also, according to WP:SUBSTANTIATE don't leave it there just because you agree with its opinion. I still say we should remove it for now until we have a few more sources backing up this claim. The burden of proof has not been reached. In edition, I would recommend that you re-read the reasons in the article for the ban again. It seems like scientific research and safety concerns are a much more innocent reason for it that. I don't sense any bias or hatred as the article claims. Moneyspender (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC) Sources are allowed to be WP:BIASED. That it is their stance is okay; WP:NPOV says we must reflect that. These are WP:RS claiming this, not personal opinions. This topic is covered by the general topic of homophobia and discrimination as described by these reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hungary

Hungary has lifteme deferral for MSM. See this official deferral table: https://kimittud.atlatszo.hu/request/11200/response/16628/attach/5/V%2520rad%2520sra%2520val%2520alkalmass%2520g%2520felt%2520telei%2520DON%252001%252013.kiad%2520s%25202018.06.01.pe.pdf

The table is clearly indicates that the reason for the permanent deferral is this hungarian law: 3/2005 (3/2005. (II. 10.) EüM rendelet az emberi vér és vérkomponensek gyűjtésére, vizsgálatára, feldolgozására, tárolására és elosztására vonatkozó minőségi és biztonsági előírásokról, valamint ezek egyes technikai követelményeiről): https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=A0500003.EUM

The cited source for the article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_donation_restrictions_on_men_who_have_sex_with_men is also incorrect for Hungary (and I suspect for other countries too :( ).

The map should be corrected accordingly.

84.225.193.91 (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)