Talk:Ryan White/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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 (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 (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 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 (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." (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 (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. (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)


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)


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. perhaps worth a mention? (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)


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. (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)

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 ( )—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)


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)


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 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 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) sad that Kokomoans to this day continue to treat his mom and sister like...well, you know...Michaela92399 16:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


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

< 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 (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)