This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Computer security: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security 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.Computer securityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer securityTemplate:WikiProject Computer securityComputer security Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance). Things you can help WikiProject Computer security with: Article alerts are available, updated by AAlertBot. More information... Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

@Jgellatly The latest addition appears to be original research. It relies on primary legal and policy sources, but does not cite secondary sources analyzing these provisions as examples of data minimization.

Per Wikipedia sourcing standards, that connection needs to be made by reliable secondary sources. We can't make that connection ourselves. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sibshops Fair point, thank you for flagging this. You're right that the section relied too heavily on primary legal sources without secondary analysis making the connection to data minimization explicitly. I'll update the section with secondary sources — there's a peer-reviewed article in Genetics in Medicine (Rothstein 2017) analyzing the minimum necessary standard's impact, and the HIPAA Journal has published analysis framing the minimum necessary standard in data minimization terms. I'll revise the citations accordingly. Appreciate the feedback. Jgellatly (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgellatly Yep, with a source like that, it would be better to replace the added material with a brief sentence or two in the United States section, attributed to the secondary source you found.

I also looked over some of your other edits, and some of those edits may need to be trimmed as well. On Wikipedia, the amount of coverage in reliable secondary sources is what helps determine if content is due for inclusion under WP:DUE. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sibshops Done — I've replaced the standalone section with a brief sentence in the United States subsection, attributed to Rothstein 2018. I'll review my other recent additions with WP:DUE in mind and trim where secondary source coverage doesn't support the level of detail. Thanks for the guidance. Jgellatly (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgellatly Thanks for adding a secondary source. I still do not think it supports the current wording. The paper discusses HIPAA's minimum necessary standard in the context of genomic data sharing, not a broader "healthcare applications" claim that HIPAA generally incorporates data minimization. As written, that still looks like synthesis or original research. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sibshops Good catch — you're right that the Rothstein paper is specific to genomic data sharing and doesn't support a broader claim. I've removed the sentence entirely. Appreciate the thorough review. Jgellatly (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the big issue is that now that you know Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, you may have to go back and fix all the other additions to all the other articles you edited. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sibshops That's a fair point, and I appreciate the heads-up. I'll go through my recent additions and review them with WP:DUE and secondary sourcing in mind. Where the content relies too heavily on primary regulatory sources without secondary analysis, I'll either find appropriate secondary sources or trim accordingly. Thanks for taking the time to explain this — it's been a helpful learning experience. Jgellatly (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking through a number of your other edits.. and they are problematic for other reasons. Like you referenced sources which didn't exist. For example:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/unitedhealth-confirms-change-healthcare-hack-affects-100-million-people/

And I'm not sure bleeping computer is likely to be considered a reliable source, either. Please go fix all your previous edits before adding new ones. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Learning still. I'll slow down and double check my research more. I appreciate the coaching. Lots of these edits are just cleaning up poor grammar and bad info, but I want to contribute with good research too. We have a couple hours a week allocation to give back to the cyber compliance community, and my choice was cleaning up some of this bad data. Thanks again. Jgellatly (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]