User talk:Cyrussullivan

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to List of people with hepatitis C. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Manway (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Criminal transmission of HIV. Thank you. Manway (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

HIV/Herpes site
Cyrus:

It's not a reliable source. Anyone who registers on the site can place the name of someone who they think has one of the STDs and it's published. It states on the page that: "The sources of the reports are responsible for the validity of the information contained in the reports and any conclusions that can be derived from that information." They are not taking responsibility for the reports on their site.

The other thing that bothers me is they have a "False STD Report Removal Page" in which they urge a person who is listed to get their name removed by doing the following:

"7. Go to a doctor’s office and get tested for the Sexually Transmitted Disease (or Diseases) in some cases that you were reported for having. For Genital Herpes (Herpes Simplex Virus 2 - HSV2), Hepatitis C, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) this can be done with a simple blood test that will detect antibodies if you are infected, if your results are clean then the profile will be removed. For HPV and Genital Warts there is no blood test, but they can be frequently detected by other means, clean screening results for either will be satisfactory for the removal of a profile. 8. Have your doctor send your clean test results in an official sealed envelope to: STDCarriers.com P.O. Box 86448 Portland, OR 97286 Please note that we do not accept certified mail. 9. Contact us to let us know that test results are on their way. This will cause the post office box to be checked more frequently. 10. When we receive and review the test results the report will be removed as soon as possible and you will receive the I.P. Address information necessary to help you track down the person responsible."

Guilty until proven innocent, anyone? That's my rationale for not allowing that under WP:RELIABLE.

As for the Magic Johnson thing, Magic is a special case - as he admitted his infection. However, I don't feel the YouTube video would add anything to it.

As to others on the list, let's take one: David Hasselhoff. The site says he has herpes. A cursory google search shows many sites that would attest to this, but none of them would be considered RS - most of them contain some variation of "gossip" in their name. Doing a Google news search shows nothing in a mainstream press report that verifies this.

Thanks for letting me state my case. I'll post this over on the Reliable Sources noticeboard and see what a consensus is on it.

Regards, --Manway (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, have you read WP:BLPyet? The lead of that article states:

"Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability No original research

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

I feel that you linked to an attack site. No matter what they say about verifiability, the fact that a person can get their name removed from the site by submitting a doctor's report to a PO box in Oregon does not sit well.

Do me a favor? I'm going to revert your reversion per: WP:BLP and wait for consensus over on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. I would rather err on the conservative side when it comes to Wiki policies. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it. Fair enough? --Manway (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP discussion
I've started one here. I didn't see the earlier warning by the way or I wouldn't have made a redundant one. But please do take the warnings seriously - unless you can convince people there are no BLP violations, you must not post your link. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)