This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

AIDS This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.AIDSWikipedia:WikiProject AIDSTemplate:WikiProject AIDSAIDS ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Guatemala This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guatemala, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guatemala on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GuatemalaWikipedia:WikiProject GuatemalaTemplate:WikiProject GuatemalaGuatemala ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The statement about the U.S. deliberately infecting Guatemalans with various STDs — while it may be true — is a statement that is so extraordinary that a mere {{Citation needed}} tag is insufficient. It is too violative of Wikipedia’s prime directive: verifiablity. Also, it is up to you, the editor adding the statement, to come up with the verifiable reference/citation. It is not for others to do, not in such an extraordinary circumstance. The onus is on the editor originating the statement. You cannot place that burden on anyone who correctly points out that it runs afoul of WP:V.

For the originiating editor to merely place a {{Citation needed}} tag in such a circumstance is to circumvent the responsibility of providing verifiable references/citations himself, and to place any other editor into a 3RR situation if they do the right thing and remove the eggregiously unsourced statements. — SpikeToronto 16:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It is incorrect to label the reversion of an extraordinary, unsourced statement — a reversion accompanied by a clear edit summary and a notification on the editor’s talk page — “vandalism.” — SpikeToronto 17:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in all fairness to the originating IP editor, this is now hitting the news. I just heard a brief report on it from CBC Newsworld. Only thing is, I am not sure how one goes about citing a news brief given by the anchor of a show. Would it be something like this:

“CBC News Now,” CBC News Network. October 2, 2010.

If so, we could reinstate the IP editor’s edit with this citation. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 04:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I told you so. Any edits to remove this are vandalism --93.82.8.84 (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you were wrong. What you were told was that everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable, that everything must be accompanied by a verifiable reference/citation, and nothing more so than sentences that may prove controversial. So, we also told you so! ☺

To prevent you being blocked for something like this again, you should read the following: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:REFBEGIN.

As for vandalism, you really do not understand the concept. As I have told you elsewhere, please read WP:VAN to understand why reverting an unsourced possibly controversial statement is not vandalism. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The material that you want to insert in this article does not apply to this article anyway. The recent admission by the U.S. Government is regarding experiments done in the 1940s. HIV/AIDS is a post-1980s phenomenon. — SpikeToronto 18:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]