Talk:Ryan White

message: 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. -- RttamTNC 01:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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.  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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:  and for the homepage,  can be used.  Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: It's the best solution, and it makes this matter resolved! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: "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: . 67.100.222.184 (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  'Gay' vs 'homosexual' 

message: 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)
replies: text: "Ryan White was born at St. Joseph Memorial Hospital" ? 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)
thread_title:  Source 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Excellent Citations

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ryan White Controversy/knowledge of AIDS 

message: There is no evidence that White is a Presbyterian. The sources say that "The massive [Presbyterian] church was chosen [for his funeral] because it could accomodate a large crowd." I am removing the categories per WP:EGRS and WP:CATV. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We know that Ryan and his family were Methodists. Their family had been members of a Methodist church in Kokomo, Indiana for three generations. In Weeding Out The Tears Jeanne White Ginder tells a family story about how her parents and grandparents relied upon the church during the Great Depression. It helps account for why she thought the congregation would be supportive and help care for them when Ryan was diagnosed with AIDS. 2001:1970:4F67:B800:C5AC:5C26:6A5D:E868 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

text: In addition, in Weeding Out The Tears Jeanne White thought it was quite sad that Ryan couldn't have had his funeral at his own church. Not that she didn't appreciate the large church in Indianapolis. But he didn't have the funeral with his own congregation. A junior minister Ryan knew at the church did come to proceed over the funeral. Rev. Bud Probasco. Probasco later endorsed Donald Trump in the Republican Presidential primary in Indiana. Bud was impressed that Trump had shown some kindness to the family after Ryan died. 2001:1970:4F67:B800:C5AC:5C26:6A5D:E868 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presbyterian? 

message: White was diagnosed on December 17, 1984 with AIDS based on the CDC's surveillance definition then in force. Most critically, the Abbott Labs HIV test was not "approved" by the FDA until either March 2 or March 7 1985 (there is some evidence the FDA did not actually approve the test but HHS Secretary Margaret Heckler just announced it on March 7th as approved for political reasons and later the FDA pretended it had held an approval committee meeting on March 2cd - the reporting on this is by John Crewdson). For the rest of 1985, it was heavily rationed and only used for screening - not diagnostics. In other words there is no way during the School controversy that White could have had an HIV test - he was diagnosed with AIDS because he had PCP pneumonia - The HIV infection was purely presumptive. Even in 1987, over 70% of San Francisco's AIDS cases were diagnosed without an HIV test, and the CDC did not change its surveillance definition until 1987. Nowhere in the court pleadings does White ever claim he had HIV infection - it always says AIDS, and nowhere in Christopher McNeil's reporting for the Kokomo Tribune (300 articles) does he say White had HIV. He always said White had AIDS. Western Virginia Tech university professor Harry Bauer has stated that this diagnosis was incorrect because an AIDS diagnosis based on PCP Pneumonia under the 1984 criteria to have no other explanation - but there was a perfectly logical one: White's hemophilia.
According the McNeil, Jeanne White told the School Board that White "was infected with the AIDS Virus" in February 1984- but the test wasn't available in February 1984. She did this in response to the Schools asking about White's frequent absences - he missed the majority of his 7th grade courses. McNeil claimed he was tipped off about the White family from the Red Cross in early March 1985 when he was reporting on the Abbott Labs test - but what's strange is why would the Red Cross give out this type of personal information and why would McNeil disclose White's status to the public? There was a local television station that later filmed Jeanne White and McNeil embracing in a sexual manner and it caused a scandal. The White family made a-lot of money on the contraversy - the Goodfellows Foundation gave them $100,000, and the P/R savvy of the coverage is fairly self-evident.
In this context, I want to suggest that the P/R strategy was really about special education. There was legal precedent for requiring White to go into special education on account of his hemophelia and frequent absences but by claiming an AIDS diagnosis, White had legal standing to fight the School Corporation. Tellingly, White's death certificate was never released. Also, in regard to White's death, Radio announcements indicated White had been rushed to the hospital with internal bleeding, and later a graduate student of Harry Rubin at UC Berkeley named Brian Ellison called the Indiana Hemophelia Foundation, and was told by somebody with direct knowledge of the case that White died of complications from Hemophilia, not AIDS.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.126.71.24 (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You have made a lot of claims here without a shred of evidence. We need reliable sources. Sundayclose (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Ryan received a clinical diagnosis of AIDs after suffering from a viral pneumonia. She was not aware that he was HIV positive prior to the diagnosis. The family had some concerns about reports of hemophiliacs having AIDS due to Factor 8 treatments, but never went to be tested. Not long after Ryan was diagnosed many hemophiliacs were given HIV tests. The vast majority of sever hemophiliacs were infected with HIV and Hepatitis C. That's hemophiliacs that treated regularly with Factor 8. The hemophilia community told their members to keep treating and withheld information regarding tainted Factor 8 products. They also didn't want hemophiliacs to face the same public backlash as gays had up until that point. There was a common expression of "Hemo Not Homo" 2001:1970:4F67:B800:C5AC:5C26:6A5D:E868 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies 

message: "During the 1980s, AIDS was largely stigmatized as an illness impacting the gay community. In the US, that perception shifted with the media focus placed on White and other prominent straight HIV-infected people such as Magic Johnson, Arthur Ashe and the Ray brothers, although these cases were often framed as "innocent" against gay men who were seen as "guilty" subjects."
This paragraph is placed 2nd in the article about Ryan White. I believe it is important information, yet I am curious why it was placed 2nd? As we read about the life of Ryan White it feel natural to move into the information of his youth and illness which we see in paragraph 3. It did not feel natural to move into a contemplation of HIV/AIDS on the gay community. This is an important topic to address, it may simply fit better at a later point in the article.  Avaloowhoo (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The portion of a Wikipedia article that comes before the first section header (in this article, the first two paragraphs) is the "lede"/"lead", which is a summary of the entire article. Arguably the main reason the White is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article is because he was one of the first non-homosexual people to become infected with HIV/AIDS in the U.S. The contents of the second paragraph reflect the last portion of the article, especially the section named "Ryan White and public perception of AIDS". Indyguy (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjustment to Paragraph Placement?