Talk:List of HIV-positive people/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Nomination for deletion

I hereby nominate this article for deletion.

Discuss amongst yourselves. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, if you're really serious about this you might want to consider maybe figuring out how to renominate it properly, instead of linking this to the AFD for Burlington Center Mall. Bearcat 18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I admit I just did a quick copy-and-paste job and missed that reference to the other article. I just want to get the ball rolling. Maybe someone else here who also wants this deleted could complete the bureaucratic stuff? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

More important than the technical issue of how to do a nomination, is the need for an actual reason. You gave no rationale for deletion. Now, a good case could be made, but you didn't make it. Instead you gave us "Discuss amongst yourselves., which frankly, rubbed me the wrong way. --Rob 19:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm just one person here: the idea was to see if there were other people who might share this sentiment. Either contribute to the discussion or butt out. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this list has any great value, but I'd be amazed if it was deleted. Although Wikipedia is supposed to not be about lists, there are lists for everything, and although many get nominated for deletion, very few get deleted. Even on the flimsiest pretense, the silliest lists get a lot of "keep" votes, and this list is less silly and pointless than many of them. So, with this is mind, I'd rather see that the list is at least dealt with responsibly - that is : no name is allowed on the list without a valid, unambiguous source. Living people only to be included if they have publically acknowledged their HIV status and a source included. That would at least reduce the controversial aspect of the list where several names were added with only the most spurious sources available. Rossrs 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is, rotsa ruck. (In agreement.) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

:-) I know what you mean, but we'll see. Rossrs 08:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Other stuff

Removed the following about Brad Davis:

contracted AIDS in 1979 apparently from his one-time cocaine addiction

Until a source is cited. It's highly implausible that he had AIDS (as the term is now understood, i.e. that he was symptomatic) in 1979, and lived for as long as he did. Also, if he was HIV infected from cocaine use, it could only have been from injecting, which is very rare.

Should Paul Gann be added? He was a co-author of California Proposition 13 (1978), which was refered to as the "Jarvis-Gann" initiative at the time of its passgage. (Ref: http://www.aegis.com/news/ads/1989/AD892022.html)

Kalcey Cooper

I can't find a single reference on the web that attests to either this person's HIV status or their encyclopedia-worthiness. Please provide support for inclusion, or leave him/her off the list. Bearcat 23:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Title of page?

Why is this a list of HIV-positive individuals, as opposed to a list of HIV-positive people? Is there some class of individuals who are HIV-positive who couldn't or don't want to be characterized as people? If not, then I recommend the page be moved to List of HIV-positive people, which not only is more straightforward language, but I think better humanizes the list. Any objections? At the risk of sounding trite, HIV-positive individuals are people too. :-) Nohat 06:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After 10 days without objection, I moved this page to List of HIV-positive people. Nohat 09:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat

As of now, it is only rumored that Arafat was HIV-positive, and it's not mentioned in the article, so I'm removing him from the list (for the time being) Gwimpey 06:36, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I've removed Krzysztof Kieslowski. Any reference, please? Pibwl 20:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Organization

I would prefer if this was a straight alpha-list, but I do not want to change it until you Smart People approve as overall I am very happy with this page Paul, in Saudi 13:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Uncited porn stars

I hereby request that we immediately remove any individual who does not have another article associated with them. There are no citations at this article on anyone. I feel this article is serves an important purpose but it becomes subject to easy vandalism as well as libel. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 19:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

You know, the chances of defamation on this article are pretty high. I think we need to establish a way of providing a fact that someone has HIV if they will appear on this list. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree — within the past two days I've had to revert somebody who added Jimbo Wales to the list, believe it or not. Same standard as other lists: mention in the article, and/or an web reference annotated here. I'm just not prepared to take the whole project on myself, but if people could assist, it's a good and necessary thing to do. Bearcat 19:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why only pornographic stars

No other movie stars have AIDS? Please fix this.

Relatively few mainstream movie stars have or had HIV (or at least are open about it); those that did are listed under the Entertainers section. Bearcat 19:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Pornographic Film Stars vs Entertainers

Surely pornographic film stars ARE entertainers. I don't see a need for a separate category. Ordinary Person 01:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to explain, what originally happened was that somebody had created a separate list of porn stars with HIV; it was AFD'd and consensus favoured merging it here — so because it came from a different article, the person who did the merge pasted it into the article as a subsection rather than manually sorting the names into alphabetical order under another section.

For what it's worth, I really don't care how it's handled — I'm fine with either a dedicated subsection or reordering the names under Entertainers (or even reorganizing the whole damn thing to be strictly alphabetical, for that matter, which would actually be my first preference), but from what I can tell there is a widespread belief that they merit a special subsection because of the particular effect that HIV has obviously had on people who are paid to have sex on film; there was actually a major "porn stars with HIV" crisis just a few years ago.

And finally, if you don't like the way something is organized on Wikipedia, you always have the freedom to change it yourself; it seems rather pointless to me to criticize the article's organization scheme on the article's talk page when you can just as easily click on the article tab and reorganize it on your own. Bearcat 18:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Point?

Excuse me for rudely interrupting, but:

Just what the fuck is the purpose of this so-called article?

I ask this question in the existential sense of the word "purpose". What possible purpose could this serve, other than your own voyeurism or compulsive curiosity?

Think about it. Now back to your small-minded list-making task. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 08:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

removal of signficant portion may be needed

Wow! This is article is bad. There are no sources cited at all, for something that's very stigmitizing. It's almost impossible to check all these names. None should have been added without a source first. That's truly irresponsible. The only reason this isn't a technical violation of WP:LIVING, is sadly most have died. I personally think we aught to treat the recently departed and their family's with some of the respect we do the living. If these were living people, I could immediately remove every unsourced name. Instead, I'll wait to see if sources are added. Perhaps we can keep blue links, if the article itself has a source. However redlinks, and bluelinks who's articles lack sources will need to be removed. Please read WP:V. I think on a go-forward basis, its appropriate to remove any new addition lacking a proper citation, so we stop adding to the problem. Yes, I know some of these cases, are incredibly famous and well known, but many more are obscure people, few have heard about, and which require a source to be certain. As Jimbo said:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. [1]

I take that as permission to do major trimming in the near future. --Rob 06:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I just removed all living persons. I would take Jimbo's words as meaning this entire article should be blanked out, actually, since not one of these entries are sourced, but I know people would probably cry vandalism. wikipediatrix 13:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Far from being speculation, many of the living people you removed have publicly disclosed their own HIV status, and many in fact are specifically HIV/AIDS activists. Only names for which sources can't be found should have been removed. Alternatively, though, I would support narrowing the purpose and definition of this list to reflect AIDS-related deaths only, but if that's what we're going to do, then the title and list description need to be changed. Bearcat 19:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the obligation of those adding the information to provide those sources. People should not think they can add this information without citing sources, and should not expect others to fix what they did wrong (though people are free to fix it, if they wish, of course). Note, that the policy says its unacceptable to add such information if it's unsourced or poorly sourced. It doesn't say you can add (or re-add) it just because you think its potentionally sourceable. If its sourceable, then it should be sourced. --Rob 20:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Granted, but that policy hasn't always been spelled out as explicitly as it is now. When this article was first started, the general MO on Wikipedia was "just add the name, no source link is necessary". While I agree entirely that this list should be properly sourced, I don't at all agree with undoing three years worth of work just because sourcing wasn't required at the start; I think there should be a onetime "locate all the appropriate sources for the names that are already on the list" project, and then remove the names that still can't be sourced, and then a strict "no new additions without legitimate sources" rule. I can't agree with simply wiping out names that were added to the list two or three years ago when clear sourcing wasn't actually stated as a requirement. Bearcat 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to launch such a project, you can still do so. All the names are in history. You can post a prominent link to the "most complete" version of the article at the top of this talk page, and you, and others, are free to go and research those names, putting the valid ones back in the article (with citations). No information has been "lost". However, what would be more productive, and the proper order, would be first to find reliable sources, which contains lists of the relevant people, and add names from their (regardless of whether they were here before, or not). Surely we're not the first publication to compile such a list (and if we are, there's something wrong). --Rob 21:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, in the time that Bearcat took to type yet another argument, he could have done some researching instead, and Googled several entries and grabbed some sources for entries he wants to keep on the list. Secondly, just because the information has been here since before citations were important doesn't mean it isn't junk information. This is precisely WHY citations have been made more important nowadays. The bottom line is: that a person is HIV-positive is a VERY serious claim to make, and without proof, it cannot remain in the article. wikipediatrix 22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in taking on a giant sourcing project by myself, so let's keep this to the matter at hand, which is determining the most appropriate direction to take with this article, rather than getting into irrelevant side debates about who actually has a responsibility to take on specific tasks they haven't volunteered for. If you're willing to help organize and participate in a group effort, then I'd be happy to take part, but I ain't doing it all by myself. Bearcat 22:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you're obligated to personally provide sources for most of the list, I'm simply explaining why I am personally deleting most of the list. I personally think this list is unnecessary, intrusive, and just plain stupid, and will not be contributing names to it, although I sure as heck will be making certain that if this article MUST exist, it will contain properly cited sources for its potentially slanderous accusations. wikipediatrix 05:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe List of notable brain tumor patients could be used as an example of how this article could be structured. The table presents and segments the information clearly, each entry is individually sourced, and as a featured list it obviously meets the criteria for what is "good" to a high degree. It also a similar type of list, as it lists individuals who have/had a particular medical condition. I think both lists have roughly equal encyclopedic value and it may improve this one. As User:Bearcat said, "I ain't doing it all by myself" but I am willing to participate. It's a big task, but one that only needs to be done once. Rossrs 13:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have converted the "A"s to table format and sourced the first two, to show what it would look like. Easy to revert if not considered suitable. I figure that once we source whatever is on the list, we make it a rule that nobody is added without a suitable source, and any that are added without source are removed - no exceptions. Maybe this will reduce the speculative and the potentialy slanderous entries. Rossrs 14:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest WP:FOOTNOTE be used (eg. "<ref>/<references"). Since this is being done from scratch, it should be done using the new standard. Detailed citations (e.g publisher, date, author, etc...) will help when links go dead, and sources have to be re-found. They'll also make it easy to review what sources are being used, without clicking every link. --Rob 14:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Yes, that's much better. Rossrs 14:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The LGBT people lists also have a rule that a name must have an existing Wikipedia article; redlinks cannot be added to the lists in advance. I think that kind of rule would also be appropriate here; it also helps control the use of the list to post joke or attack entries. Bearcat 19:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of specific names from list

With the aim of avoiding controversy I suggest that any names removed from the list be briefly addressed here to prevent them being readded until the article is stable.

Allan Bloom - can find no source that says he died of AIDS or even had it. Seems to have been conjectured after his death but nothing more. Example : "was homosexual and may have died of AIDS, suggestion[s] that other friends strongly dispute" from New York Times Our own, rather lengthy article does not mention the possibility of AIDS. Rossrs 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's ok for Allan Bloom. But for living people, the names should not be listed here. WP:LIVING says "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page". Anybody can easily look back in the article's history. We have to be cautious about spreading rumors, even on talk pages. My comments are just generic though. In the case of Bloom, your talking about what you found in a reliable source, so, there's obviously no harm in mentioning it here. --Rob 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have to question the point of going into involved discussions about our reasons for removing names here. The fact that they're unsourced is simply reason enough. It would be more logical for us to hash out who should be added to the list before doing so. wikipediatrix 20:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're both right. There is really no point. Rossrs 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

the new format

I don't like it. It's harder to read, it makes the article longer and takes up more space unnecessarily. And if we're going to use it, it needs to be finished immediately, rather than leaving the article in this in-between limbo. wikipediatrix 04:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Then do something yourself, rather than contributing nothing but criticism. If I had unlimited time I would sit here until it's finished but I don't, I can't and so I won't. Perhaps if I wasn't the only person looking for sources, it would be finished. Thanks for all of your help. As far as I can see you've done nothing but make negative comments, and I'm annoyed that after I've spent a lot of time looking for references and trying to work the article into something that complies with the criteria YOU stated, this is all you have to say. Rossrs 09:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but stating my opinion of the new format is the proper thing for me to do on a discussion page - that's what the discussion page is for. And I never suggested anything about reformatting the article into tables and boxes. wikipediatrix 13:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No you did not and your comments about the table format itself, along with your general disapproval of the way the list was originally constructed, is fine. I agreed with it, obviously, because I was willing to spend my time fixing it. Personally, I think the table makes it easier to see when a reference is lacking. It's the accepted format for featured lists, so as such, I assumed it was considered the Wikipedia "ideal". I'm not offended that you have a different viewpoint. What I'm annoyed about, is you saying "it needs to be finished immediately" which I thought was the main point you were making. In a perfect world I would agree with you on this too, but considering that sourcing the numerous entries is fairly time consuming, and considering that I seem to be the only person actually doing any, it would have been less of a slap in the face if you kept your impatience with the process to yourself. It would have been much more community spirited if you'd thought "hey someone is finally checking sources for this, just like I said they should. I'll pick 6 from the list and help out. Put my money where my mouth is". That would have been nice. But yes, stating your opinion on the format in general - no problem. Rossrs 13:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the table is finished so the article looks more standardised, but there are numerous entries remaining to be referenced. Rossrs 15:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed persons from this list

I removed the following persons, for now, since I couldn't find reliable sources for those. For some only IMDB (or copies of that) and some only blogs/forums.

• Frank Silva 1949-1995 American actor and film set designer
• Michael Staniforth 1945-1987 British stage actor
• Marc Stevens died 1989 pornographic film performer
• Eric Stryker1954-1988 pornographic film performer
• Chris Williams 1967-1991 pornographic film performer
• Joey Yale 1949-1986 pornographic film performer

Garion96 (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

New additions

I've added some Africans to add a bit of balance to a mainly American list. These people may not be famous in the West but they are certainly "notable" in their home countries. The omission of Zackie Achmat in particular was quite startling. Trezatium 20:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Discepancies between list and category

The Category:HIV-positive people contains 27 names, most of which don't appear on the much longer List of HIV-positive people. Conversely, some of the most significant names in the list are absent from the category. We need to decide how best to coordinate these two pages. At present the category consists largely of porn stars, and several of the names are misplaced in the alphabetical order. Is the category really necessary, given that the list is far more comprehensive, and is also fully referenced? Trezatium 14:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

According to guidelines, no articles should be categorized by bot. So, unless someone wants to trawl through the list and categorize the articles one by one, I guess the discrepancy will remain. Trezatium 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Under WP's rules on biographies of living people, the list was fairly recently scoured to remove any person from it who is still living but was not properly referenced for inclusion. Whereas the category wasn't even created until some time after that happened. Which is where a lot of the discrepancy comes from; names that were formerly on the list are only readded when somebody comes along, notes that a name is missing, and readds it with a proper source citation, but as far as I know to date nobody's reviewed the category for the same kind of source requirements. I'll do some work to fix up the discrepancies, since I'm probably one of the only editors on Wikipedia who actually keeps a regular eye on this, but not necessarily all in one shot. Also, a person shouldn't be categorized in Category:HIV-positive people if they've already died; that's what Category:AIDS-related deaths is for. The HIV-positive people category, if it's even kept at all (I'm a bit indecisive on that, personally) should be for people who are still living. Bearcat 20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the AIDS-related deaths category, which appears to be quite comprehensive (has it been cross-checked with the list?). I too am undecided about whether the HIV-positive people category should be kept. Perhaps it would be better to get rid of it and concentrate on Category:AIDS activists instead. Trezatium 10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've cross-checked the list against Category:AIDS activists and categorized a few more names. The two I'm not sure about are Randy Shilts and David Wojnarowicz. They were journalists but do they count as AIDS activists? Trezatium 19:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicted ! Randy Shilts was an author and reporter first. Bastique▼^parler _voir 19:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-notables

I've removed from the list any name that isn't directly linked to an article. A lot of people have died from AIDS. A lot more have HIV. I do believe that the criteria for inclusion on this list is that the individual has a Wikipedia article. Or else, please, add me to it as well. Bastique▼^parler _voir 19:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point. However, I'm going to try to write articles on each of the Africans you've removed, and then put them back on the list (perhaps excluding Mobutu's son). When Nelson Mandela announced that his son had died of AIDS it was a major news story around the world. The announcements by Kaunda, Buthelezi and Muluzi were also highly significant in the African context. The list contains dozens of minor American actors and pornographic performers who are massively less "notable" on a global scale than activists such as Zulu and Were. It is absurd that there are hardly any names from the continent that has suffered the major brunt of the epidemic. Trezatium 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There are 20 porn performers in the list. Has anyone checked them against Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)? Trezatium 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the high incedence of vandalism to this article, I've maintained my criteria of making sure that the individuals have an article, not making sure the article is valid. Of course if a worthy link turns red, the name should come off. Incedentally, pornographic performers, for one reason or another (whether sexually transmitted or IV drug use), have had a higher incedent of HIV infection than the population at large. I would expect them to be over-represented on the list. However, feel free to check the articles themselves against the above. Bastique▼^parler _voir 02:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's do this properly...

I think this is a very useful list. However, I'm not convinced that the choice of whom to include and exclude has been very carefully or systematically considered. I've found dozens of people who are listed in Category:AIDS-related deaths but are absent from List of HIV-positive people - see my talk page for the complete list. I suggest trawling through my list to see whether any of these people should be added to the list of HIV-positive people.

I also suggest that the entries in the list of HIV-positive people should be looked at to see whether they are really any more notable than the dozens of eligible people who are excluded. I don't think the list should contain every person who is/was HIV-positive and has an article in Wikipedia. I suggest the following guidelines:

1. All of the most notable HIV-positive people should be included.
2. There should be some bias towards including people from under-represented groups (especially people from outside the US and UK).

Trezatium 19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Having sifted through the list myself, I think the following ten names are most deserving of inclusion:

• Simon Nkoli - done
• Willi Ninja - done
• Ondrej Nepela - done
• Majid Musisi - can't find a reference
  • Turkish reference [2] Garion96 (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Sylvester James - already included as "Sylvester"
• Sighsten Herrgård - can't find a reference
  • Swedish referene [3] Garion96 (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Done, thanks to User:Bbx. Trezatium 19:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Alison Gertz - done
• Nozipho Bhengu - done
• Paddy Chew - done
• Perry Ellis - done

They can be crossed off as they are either added or rejected.

Trezatium 12:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What! Perry Ellis wasn't already included! Geez. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 13:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Also:

• Stewart McKinney - done
• Tom Waddell - done

Trezatium 14:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I found two but in a foreign language. Anyone here speaks Swedish or Turkish? Garion96 (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put some requests out. Trezatium 17:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As the next step, I think we should go through the list and remove those who aren't really notable enough, after putting their names on the talk page for discussion. I've had second thoughts about the criteria I suggested above, and I don't think there should be any kind of bias. So I've removed Kongulu Mobutu. Trezatium 16:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for deletion

I suggest removing the following names, because, according to their Wikipedia articles, they seem to be less notable than some of the many people who are already omitted. This would make the list less arbitrary.

• Sheldon Andelson (university regent)
• Chris Burns (porn star)
• Geoffrey Burridge (British actor)
• Merritt Butrick (American actor)
• Bobby DeBarge (American singer)
• Peter Hujar (American photographer)
• John Megna (American former child actor)
• Lisa Melendez (porn film performer)
• Wade Nichols (porn film performer)
• Franklyn Seales (American actor)
• Ron Vawter (American actor)
• David Wojnarowicz (American painter, photographer, writer, filmmaker, performance artist, and activist)

I'll wait a while to see if anyone objects.

Trezatium 10:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, what is most notable? How do you define that? For some people David Wojnarowicz might be more notable than Freddie Mercury. It's difficult to mantain a NPOV on that. I would keep the list for everyone who has a wikipedia article. Garion96 (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonable suggestion, but it would entail the addition of several dozen additional names as listed on my talk page (plus a few others from Category:HIV-positive people).

The alternative is to keep the list as a selection of the most notable people. I'd prefer this option because I think it makes for a more interesting and useful article. Around 65 million people have been infected with HIV (including those who have died), and it's inevitable that this number includes many people notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I think the list gets a bit boring if it includes every minor actor, writer, porn star or singer who happens to have become infected, and it would be better to include only people who are highly notable, or who have played a significant role in the history of AIDS (e.g. Gaetan Dugas, Michael Callen, Kimberly Bergalis). After all, if readers want an exhaustive list then they can look at Category:AIDS-related deaths and Category:HIV-positive people (except that, somewhat peversely, these categories omit people who were HIV-positive and died of non-AIDS-related causes).

Having said that, the guidelines say that, "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria". Given the nature of Wikipedia, an exhaustive list may be unavoidable.

Trezatium 18:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We'd need to add more than 80 additional names to make the list exhaustive. Trezatium 18:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's still manageable I think. If needs to, the list can always be divided into sub lists. I just think it's impossible to mantain a NPOV on 'most notable'. If agreed I will start working on adding entries. Like the small list on your talk page. That is, if I can find reliable sources. Garion96 (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Trezatium 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a few from the entertainment weekly source. I wonder if that external link in the article is a good source. This link [4] would make things real easy to source. I will check out that site in detail later. Garion96 (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I consider Chris Burns notable enough to remain on the list. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 16:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Section suggestions

• How about a section entitled "Scientifically notable infections", or something similar, to include Bergalis, Dugas, Noe and Rask?
• How about removing the "Military" section?

Trezatium 14:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Both of them. Garion96 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)