Talk:List of HIV-positive people/Archive 2

953:

reference is lacking. It's the accepted format for featured lists, so as such, I assumed it was considered the Knowledge (XXG) "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.

1284:. 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. 31: 555:, 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 682:(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). -- 782:/<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. -- 1121:

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 Knowledge (XXG) who actually keeps a regular eye on this, but not necessarily all in one shot. Also, a person shouldn't be categorized in

1760:

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

1369:

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 Knowledge (XXG).

876:". 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. -- 739:

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.

681:

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

186:

I don't think this list has any great value, but I'd be amazed if it was deleted. Although Knowledge (XXG) 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

496:

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

929:

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

753:

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

952:

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

1616:

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

1318:

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

767:

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

571:

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

502:

And finally, if you don't like the way something is organized on Knowledge (XXG), 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

1120:

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

638:

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

550:

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

1824:

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.

1146:

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

718:, 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 187:

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

804:

The LGBT people lists also have a rule that a name must have an existing Knowledge (XXG) 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.

486:

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

273:

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.

1082:. 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. 1319:

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.

930:

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.

437:

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.

1761:

many people notable enough to have a Knowledge (XXG) 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

698:

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

653:

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 Knowledge (XXG) was "just add the name, no source link is necessary". While I agree entirely that this list

1726:

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.

848:- 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 that other friends strongly dispute" from 918:

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.

885:

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

643:

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.

125:

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?

566:, 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: 1250:

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

1635:

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

591:

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.

671:

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.

135:

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

191:

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.

1353:

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

662:

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

694:

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.

1765:

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

293:

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.

1056:

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

423:

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. -

497:

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.

1099:, 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. 849: 842:

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.

309:? 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 161:

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. ==

1298: 365:

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

939:

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

346:

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)

1129:

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.

76: 71: 59: 754:

individuals who have/had a particular medical condition. I think both lists have roughly equal encyclopedic value and it may improve this one. As

1366:

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.

457:

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.

1280:

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

1096: 750: 383:

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.

1116:

was fairly recently scoured to remove any person from it who is still living but was not properly referenced for inclusion. Whereas the

874:

Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page

735:

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

758:

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.

1938:

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

379:

I hereby request that we immediately remove any individual who does not have another article associated with them. There are no

278: 47: 17: 1378:

There should be some bias towards including people from under-represented groups (especially people from outside the US and UK).

1862:

I added a few from the entertainment weekly source. I wonder if that external link in the article is a good source. This link

1333: 1269: 1226: 1625: 1582: 1386: 1458: 1773:(except that, somewhat peversely, these categories omit people who were HIV-positive and died of non-AIDS-related causes). 996: 530:

I ask this question in the existential sense of the word "purpose". What possible purpose could this serve, other than

1359: 1079: 330: 310: 1783: 768:

source are removed - no exceptions. Maybe this will reduce the speculative and the potentialy slanderous entries.

38: 1770: 1766: 1748: 1355: 1126: 1122: 1075: 1743:

That's a reasonable suggestion, but it would entail the addition of several dozen additional names as listed on

1084:

Is the category really necessary, given that the list is far more comprehensive, and is also fully referenced?

1646: 104:

Well, if you're really serious about this you might want to consider maybe figuring out how to renominate it

1173: 1148: 537: 218: 162: 127: 109: 95: 1392:

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

778: 1961: 1948: 1914: 1872: 1857: 1832: 1819: 1802: 1734: 1720: 1608: 1595: 1550: 1528: 1479: 1466: 1434: 1338: 1305: 1288: 1274: 1231: 1188: 1155: 1133: 1103: 1089: 1064: 1046: 980: 957: 947: 934: 923: 903: 894: 880: 858: 809: 795: 786: 772: 762: 744: 730: 707: 686: 676: 648: 633: 596: 583: 540: 507: 476: 461: 442: 427: 413: 369: 246: 221: 196: 165: 144: 130: 116: 98: 1450: 473: 424: 1744: 1681: 1363: 869: 552: 347: 1958: 1869: 1829: 1731: 1592: 1463: 1431: 1043: 1009: 944: 920: 891: 741: 704: 593: 629:, but if that's what we're going to do, then the title and list description need to be changed. 609:

Far from being speculation, many of the living people you removed have publicly disclosed their

1033: 1706: 1651: 1181: 563: 472:

Surely pornographic film stars ARE entertainers. I don't see a need for a separate category.

380: 1640: 1563: 366: 1693: 1657: 1442: 281:, which was refered to as the "Jarvis-Gann" initiative at the time of its passgage. (Ref: 625:

support narrowing the purpose and definition of this list to reflect AIDS-related deaths

560: 1863: 1426: 1945: 1854: 1816: 1799: 1717: 1622: 1618: 1605: 1579: 1525: 1497: 1476: 1383: 1302: 1285: 1185: 1152: 1100: 1086: 1061: 1027: 559:. I think on a go-forward basis, its appropriate to remove any new addition lacking a 574: 572:

information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

556: 1955: 1902: 1866: 1826: 1728: 1709:(American painter, photographer, writer, filmmaker, performance artist, and activist) 1663: 1589: 1538: 1460: 1428: 1412: 1320: 1256: 1213: 1057: 1040: 877: 783: 683: 645: 580: 384: 305:

Why is this a list of HIV-positive individuals, as opposed to a list of HIV-positive

141: 1865:

would make things real easy to source. I will check out that site in detail later.

1687: 1489: 1419: 1177: 1130: 1021: 1015: 806: 755: 727: 673: 630: 504: 458: 439: 433:

I'd have to agree — within the past two days I've had to revert somebody who added

294: 282: 113: 1669: 1571: 1513: 1404: 1396: 1003: 977: 954: 931: 900: 865: 855: 845: 792: 769: 759: 434: 243: 193: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

640: 1699: 1675: 1588:

I found two but in a foreign language. Anyone here speaks Swedish or Turkish?

1505: 999:

for those. For some only IMDB (or copies of that) and some only blogs/forums.

976:

more standardised, but there are numerous entries remaining to be referenced.

354: 334: 322: 1790:. Given the nature of Knowledge (XXG), an exhaustive list may be unavoidable. 1815:

We'd need to add more than 80 additional names to make the list exhaustive.

726:

effort, then I'd be happy to take part, but I ain't doing it all by myself.

1788:"Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria" 703:

serious claim to make, and without proof, it cannot remain in the article.

1297:

There are 20 porn performers in the list. Has anyone checked them against

943:

suggested anything about reformatting the article into tables and boxes.

854:

Our own, rather lengthy article does not mention the possibility of AIDS.

492:

For what it's worth, I really don't care how it's handled — I'm fine with

482:

Just to explain, what originally happened was that somebody had created a

1472: 714:

I'm not particularly interested in taking on a giant sourcing project by

579:

I take that as permission to do major trimming in the near future. --

313:, which not only is more straightforward language, but I think better 269:

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

1255:

a Knowledge (XXG) article. Or else, please, add me to it as well.

536:

Think about it. Now back to your small-minded list-making task. ==

1176:

and categorized a few more names. The two I'm not sure about are

1078:

contains 27 names, most of which don't appear on the much longer

995:

I removed the following persons, for now, since I couldn't find

868:. But for living people, the names should not be listed here. 1374:

All of the most notable HIV-positive people should be included.

1901:

I consider Chris Burns notable enough to remain on the list.

25: 1522:

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

1184:. They were journalists but do they count as AIDS activists? 621:

be found should have been removed. Alternatively, though, I

524:

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

972:

For what it's worth, the table is finished so the article

353:

I've removed Krzysztof Kieslowski. Any reference, please?

317:

the list. Any objections? At the risk of sounding trite,

613:

HIV status, and many in fact are specifically HIV/AIDS

1112:

Under WP's rules on biographies of living people, the

329:

After 10 days without objection, I moved this page to

1537:What! Perry Ellis wasn't already included! Geez. 1212:! Randy Shilts was an author and reporter first. 667:remove the names that still can't be sourced, and 277:Should Paul Gann be added? He was a co-author of 453:No other movie stars have AIDS? Please fix this. 1299:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (pornographic actors) 283:http://www.aegis.com/news/ads/1989/AD892022.html 217:All I can say is, rotsa ruck. (In agreement.) == 791:I see what you mean. Yes, that's much better. 658:be properly sourced, I don't at all agree with 1006:1949-1995 American actor and film set designer 899:You're both right. There is really no point. 140:, which frankly, rubbed me the wrong way. -- 8: 1714:I'll wait a while to see if anyone objects. 90:I hereby nominate this article for deletion. 546:removal of signficant portion may be needed 532:your own voyeurism or compulsive curiosity? 1941:How about removing the "Military" section? 242::-) I know what you mean, but we'll see. 108:, instead of linking this to the AFD for 518:Excuse me for rudely interrupting, but: 265:Removed the following about Brad Davis: 468:Pornographic Film Stars vs Entertainers 319:HIV-positive individuals are people too 1070:Discepancies between list and category 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1125:if they've already died; that's what 1036:1949-1986 pornographic film performer 1030:1967-1991 pornographic film performer 1024:1954-1988 pornographic film performer 1018:died 1989 pornographic film performer 7: 1370:I suggest the following guidelines: 1172:I've cross-checked the list against 751:List of notable brain tumor patients 1348: 1060:in particular was quite startling. 838:Removal of specific names from list 24: 1446:- already included as "Sylvester" 1282:(perhaps excluding Mobutu's son) 279:California Proposition 13 (1978) 29: 18:Talk:List of HIV-positive people 617:. Only names for which sources 1626:16:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 1609:17:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 1596:15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 1583:14:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 1551:13:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 1529:12:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 1467:15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 1435:15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 1387:19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 1339:02:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC) 1306:22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 1289:20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 1275:19:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 1232:19:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 1189:19:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC) 991:Removed persons from this list 722:organize and participate in a 94:Discuss amongst yourselves. == 1: 1678:(American former child actor) 1349:OK, let's do this properly... 1156:10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 1134:20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 1104:18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 1090:14:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 1012:1945-1987 British stage actor 890:to the list before doing so. 1771:Category:HIV-positive people 1767:Category:AIDS-related deaths 1749:Category:HIV-positive people 1604:I've put some requests out. 1356:Category:AIDS-related deaths 1127:Category:AIDS-related deaths 1123:Category:HIV-positive people 1076:Category:HIV-positive people 414:19:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC) 1962:15:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 1949:14:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 1915:16:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 1873:19:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 1858:19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 1833:18:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 1820:18:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 1803:18:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 1735:11:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 1721:10:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 1480:19:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 1360:List of HIV-positive people 1080:List of HIV-positive people 503:reorganize it on your own. 449:Why only pornographic stars 370:13:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC) 331:List of HIV-positive people 311:List of HIV-positive people 138:Discuss amongst yourselves. 1978: 1065:20:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 781:be used (eg. "<ref: --> 350:06:36, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC) 1954:Good idea. Both of them. 1422:- can't find a reference 1047:16:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 981:15:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 958:13:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 948:13:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 935:09:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 924:04:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 904:22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 895:20:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 881:17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 859:12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 810:19:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 796:14:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 787:14:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 773:14:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 763:13:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 745:05:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 731:22:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 708:22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 687:21:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 677:19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 649:20:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 634:19:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 597:13:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 443:19:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC) 428:14:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC) 357:20:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) 297:23:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) 247:08:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 222:23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 197:23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 166:18:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 145:19:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 131:18:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 117:18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 99:17:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 1747:(plus a few others from 1631:Suggestions for deletion 1453:- can't find a reference 584:06:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 541:08:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 508:18:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 477:01:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 337:09:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) 325:06:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1672:(American photographer) 1647:Chris Burns (porn star) 1174:Category:AIDS activists 1149:Category:AIDS activists 462:19:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 85:Nomination for deletion 1782:Having said that, the 110:Burlington Center Mall 1690:(porn film performer) 1684:(porn film performer) 42:of past discussions. 1358:but are absent from 1933:Section suggestions 1853:Sounds good to me. 1643:(university regent) 1425:Turkish reference 1010:Michael Staniforth 375:Uncited porn stars 1707:David Wojnarowicz 1666:(American singer) 1652:Geoffrey Burridge 1457:Swedish referene 1451:Sighsten Herrgård 1182:David Wojnarowicz 538:ILike2BeAnonymous 219:ILike2BeAnonymous 163:ILike2BeAnonymous 128:ILike2BeAnonymous 96:ILike2BeAnonymous 82: 81: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1969: 1909: 1702:(American actor) 1696:(American actor) 1660:(American actor) 1641:Sheldon Andelson 1564:Stewart McKinney 1545: 1471:Done, thanks to 1328: 1264: 1221: 997:reliable sources 525: 412: 410: 405: 404: 398: 397: 391: 389: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1977: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1935: 1907: 1694:Franklyn Seales 1658:Merritt Butrick 1654:(British actor) 1633: 1543: 1443:Sylvester James 1351: 1337: 1326: 1273: 1262: 1248: 1230: 1219: 1210:Edit conflicted 1072: 1054: 993: 916: 840: 548: 523: 516: 474:Ordinary Person 470: 451: 425:Ta bu shi da yu 421: 408: 406: 402: 401: 395: 394: 387: 385: 377: 363: 344: 303: 291: 263: 87: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1975: 1973: 1965: 1964: 1943: 1942: 1939: 1934: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1738: 1737: 1712: 1711: 1703: 1697: 1691: 1685: 1679: 1673: 1667: 1661: 1655: 1649: 1644: 1632: 1629: 1619:Kongulu Mobutu 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1599: 1598: 1577: 1576: 1568: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1532: 1531: 1523: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1510: 1502: 1498:Nozipho Bhengu 1494: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1447: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1417: 1409: 1401: 1381: 1380: 1375: 1350: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1331: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1292: 1291: 1267: 1247: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1224: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1107: 1106: 1071: 1068: 1053: 1050: 1038: 1037: 1031: 1028:Chris Williams 1025: 1019: 1013: 1007: 992: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 915: 914:the new format 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 864:That's ok for 851:New York Times 839: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 602: 601: 600: 599: 577: 576: 547: 544: 528: 527: 515: 512: 511: 510: 499: 498: 489: 488: 469: 466: 465: 464: 450: 447: 446: 445: 420: 417: 376: 373: 367:Paul, in Saudi 362: 359: 343: 340: 339: 338: 302: 301:Title of page? 299: 290: 287: 271: 270: 262: 259: 258: 257: 256: 255: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 225: 224: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 202: 201: 200: 199: 175: 174: 173: 172: 171: 170: 169: 168: 152: 151: 150: 149: 148: 147: 120: 119: 86: 83: 80: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1974: 1963: 1960: 1957: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1947: 1940: 1937: 1936: 1932: 1916: 1913: 1911: 1905: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1874: 1871: 1868: 1864: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1856: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1834: 1831: 1828: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1818: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1804: 1801: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1736: 1733: 1730: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1710: 1708: 1704: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1692: 1689: 1686: 1683: 1682:Lisa Melendez 1680: 1677: 1674: 1671: 1668: 1665: 1664:Bobby DeBarge 1662: 1659: 1656: 1653: 1650: 1648: 1645: 1642: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1630: 1628: 1627: 1624: 1620: 1610: 1607: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1597: 1594: 1591: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1581: 1574: 1573: 1569: 1566: 1565: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1552: 1549: 1547: 1541: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1524: 1521: 1516: 1515: 1511: 1508: 1507: 1503: 1500: 1499: 1495: 1492: 1491: 1487: 1481: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1465: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1452: 1448: 1445: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1433: 1430: 1427: 1424: 1423: 1421: 1418: 1415: 1414: 1413:Ondrej Nepela 1410: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1399: 1398: 1394: 1393: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1385: 1379: 1376: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1367: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1340: 1336: 1335: 1330: 1325: 1323: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1307: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1290: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1272: 1271: 1266: 1261: 1259: 1254: 1245: 1233: 1229: 1228: 1223: 1218: 1216: 1211: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1190: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1157: 1154: 1150: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1135: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1105: 1102: 1098: 1095:According to 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1088: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1069: 1067: 1066: 1063: 1059: 1058:Zackie Achmat 1052:New additions 1051: 1049: 1048: 1045: 1042: 1035: 1032: 1029: 1026: 1023: 1020: 1017: 1014: 1011: 1008: 1005: 1002: 1001: 1000: 998: 990: 982: 979: 975: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 959: 956: 951: 950: 949: 946: 945:wikipediatrix 942: 938: 937: 936: 933: 928: 927: 926: 925: 922: 921:wikipediatrix 913: 905: 902: 898: 897: 896: 893: 892:wikipediatrix 889: 884: 883: 882: 879: 875: 871: 867: 863: 862: 861: 860: 857: 853: 852: 847: 843: 837: 811: 808: 803: 797: 794: 790: 789: 788: 785: 780: 776: 775: 774: 771: 766: 765: 764: 761: 757: 752: 748: 747: 746: 743: 742:wikipediatrix 738: 734: 733: 732: 729: 725: 721: 717: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 706: 705:wikipediatrix 702: 697: 693: 690: 689: 688: 685: 680: 679: 678: 675: 670: 666: 661: 657: 652: 651: 650: 647: 642: 637: 636: 635: 632: 628: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 598: 595: 594:wikipediatrix 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 582: 575: 573: 569: 568: 567: 565: 562: 558: 554: 545: 543: 542: 539: 534: 533: 526: 521: 520: 519: 513: 509: 506: 501: 500: 495: 491: 490: 485: 481: 480: 479: 478: 475: 467: 463: 460: 456: 455: 454: 448: 444: 441: 436: 432: 431: 430: 429: 426: 418: 416: 415: 411: 400: 393: 390: 382: 374: 372: 371: 368: 360: 358: 356: 351: 349: 342:Yasser Arafat 341: 336: 332: 328: 327: 326: 324: 320: 316: 312: 308: 300: 298: 296: 289:Kalcey Cooper 288: 286: 284: 280: 275: 268: 267: 266: 260: 248: 245: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 233: 232: 223: 220: 216: 215: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 198: 195: 190: 185: 184: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 167: 164: 160: 159: 158: 157: 156: 155: 154: 153: 146: 143: 139: 134: 133: 132: 129: 124: 123: 122: 121: 118: 115: 111: 107: 103: 102: 101: 100: 97: 92: 91: 84: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1944: 1912: 1903: 1787: 1762: 1745:my talk page 1716: 1713: 1705: 1688:Wade Nichols 1634: 1615: 1578: 1570: 1562: 1557: 1548: 1539: 1512: 1504: 1496: 1490:Alison Gertz 1488: 1449: 1441: 1420:Majid Musisi 1411: 1403: 1395: 1382: 1377: 1368: 1364:my talk page 1352: 1332: 1329: 1321: 1281: 1268: 1265: 1257: 1252: 1249: 1246:Non-notables 1225: 1222: 1214: 1209: 1178:Randy Shilts 1117: 1113: 1083: 1073: 1055: 1039: 1022:Eric Stryker 1016:Marc Stevens 994: 973: 940: 917: 887: 873: 850: 844: 841: 756:User:Bearcat 736: 723: 719: 715: 700: 695: 691: 668: 664: 659: 655: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 578: 570: 549: 535: 531: 529: 522: 517: 493: 483: 471: 452: 422: 407: 399: 386: 378: 364: 361:Organization 352: 345: 318: 314: 306: 304: 292: 276: 272: 264: 188: 137: 105: 93: 89: 88: 65: 43: 37: 1670:Peter Hujar 1572:Tom Waddell 1514:Perry Ellis 1405:Willi Ninja 1397:Simon Nkoli 1004:Frank Silva 866:Allan Bloom 846:Allan Bloom 779:WP:FOOTNOTE 435:Jimbo Wales 261:Other stuff 36:This is an 1786:say that, 1784:guidelines 1700:Ron Vawter 1676:John Megna 1506:Paddy Chew 1097:guidelines 777:I suggest 1946:Trezatium 1855:Trezatium 1817:Trezatium 1800:Trezatium 1718:Trezatium 1623:Trezatium 1606:Trezatium 1580:Trezatium 1526:Trezatium 1477:Trezatium 1384:Trezatium 1303:Trezatium 1286:Trezatium 1186:Trezatium 1153:Trezatium 1151:instead. 1101:Trezatium 1087:Trezatium 1062:Trezatium 1034:Joey Yale 870:WP:LIVING 696:Secondly, 615:activists 553:WP:LIVING 381:citations 315:humanizes 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 1956:Garion96 1867:Garion96 1827:Garion96 1729:Garion96 1590:Garion96 1473:User:Bbx 1461:Garion96 1429:Garion96 1118:category 1041:Garion96 737:deleting 692:Firstly, 564:citation 487:section. 484:separate 106:properly 1324:astique 1260:astique 1217:astique 1131:Bearcat 807:Bearcat 728:Bearcat 674:Bearcat 660:undoing 631:Bearcat 505:Bearcat 459:Bearcat 440:Bearcat 419:Sources 392:astique 348:Gwimpey 295:Bearcat 114:Bearcat 39:archive 1959:(talk) 1870:(talk) 1830:(talk) 1763:highly 1732:(talk) 1593:(talk) 1575:- done 1567:- done 1558:Also: 1517:- done 1509:- done 1501:- done 1493:- done 1464:(talk) 1432:(talk) 1416:- done 1408:- done 1400:- done 1362:- see 1044:(talk) 978:Rossrs 955:Rossrs 932:Rossrs 901:Rossrs 872:says " 856:Rossrs 793:Rossrs 770:Rossrs 760:Rossrs 749:Maybe 716:myself 656:should 641:policy 561:proper 514:Point? 494:either 321:. :-) 307:people 244:Rossrs 194:Rossrs 1906:astiq 1542:astiq 974:looks 941:never 888:added 724:group 623:would 619:can't 355:Pibwl 335:Nohat 323:Nohat 16:< 1769:and 1334:voir 1270:voir 1227:voir 1180:and 1114:list 1074:The 720:help 701:VERY 669:then 665:then 627:only 557:WP:V 189:they 1253:has 878:Rob 784:Rob 684:Rob 646:Rob 611:own 581:Rob 142:Rob 1751:). 1621:. 1475:. 1301:? 644:-- 333:. 285:) 126:== 112:. 1910:e 1908:▼ 1904:B 1546:e 1544:▼ 1540:B 1327:▼ 1322:B 1263:▼ 1258:B 1220:▼ 1215:B 409:♑ 403:♥ 396:▼ 388:ℬ 136:" 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index