The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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 is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
No It is not among the most important aspects of him. The pardon cannot be given proper context in the lead, it needs to be discussed in the body. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No The pardon is a minor event that is an insignificant part of the entire article, it would be undue weight to include it in the lead. If (hypothetically) he'd been convicted of something and then pardoned, or if it were the first time a president had issued a preemptive pardon, it might make sense in the lead, but that isn't the case here. Schazjmd(talk)16:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the pardon is WP:DUE per MOS:LEAD specifically including any prominent controversies. Thus summary in the LEAD is due. Note also that a pardon in the US must be accepted and the receiving can turn it down. The subject endorsed the controversy by accepting the pardon. The notion that this content makes the subject appear as guilty is without basis and not supported in the sources. The subject is on record stating he appreciates the pardon. Attempting to whitewash it from the LEAD is contrary to WP:5P2 in that it goes against WP:NPOV. We have had excessive POV pushing in this genre (pushing of the government narrative) and its time to stop. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, receiving a pardon is different from issuing one. The pardon does not have a lot to do with the biography of this individual. Andre🚐03:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm a bit surprised at how little the pardon is mentioned in the body of the article. It’s something that should probably be expanded on later, once the political intensity surrounding it subsides, if that day ever comes. As it stands, it's not a significant enough part of the article to justify inclusion in the lead, per WP:LFB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemov (talk • contribs)
No, coverage just doesn't treat it as a significant part of his biography. And the argument given for inclusion involves interpretation that is not present in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No: The lead should serve as a summary of the body of the article. As it stands, the pardon is only mentioned in the body as a paragraph of two sentences. ―Howard • 🌽3320:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, and especially not unless the content goes into the subject of why Biden was pre-emptively pardoning people—to protect individuals from potential politically motivated prosecutions under the incoming Trump administration. [1][2][3] As it stands, the small content already leaves the reader with the idea that there were crimes committed that needed pardoning. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Per various points made above. Not particularly WP:DUE in the context of his entire biography, and including that sentence without explanation of the context could be misleading. --Tristario (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Pardon seems pretty notable, as editors we are just suppose to report what the RS is saying, not interpret what it means. I would absolutely say his pardon is up there with notable factoids about him and any reader that just wanted to read the lead probably would want to know that information. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No – needs assessment by reliable sources of its significance for Biden's life and work, premature until published expert consensus on historical importance, if any. . . . dave souza, talk12:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No: The pardon was not so relevant to Fauci himself or his career, and it is a bit difficult to explain due to its preemptive nature. It is also not a major source of Fauci's notability. — BarrelProof (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No While I do usually have a tendency to support a more conservative rhetoric, in this case, Fauci's pardon is so low on his notability scale, it just doesn't make sense. If we were talking about an individual who received major notability by product of receiving a pardon, that would be WP:DUE for a lead. In this case, however, Fauci was notable long before the closing of Biden's administration when he received his pardon. We should, however, ensure the topic is appropriately represented in the body of his article. While it is not significant to his notability (lead-worthy), it is still a notable topic about Fauci (body-worthy). Penguino35 (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Expanding on BarrelProof, the preemptive nature of this pardon makes it unlike other instances of mentioning presidential pardons for figures like Rod Blagojevich where a specific criminal conviction is already discussed in the lead. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 07:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Agree with pretty much all the reasons so far offered - unususual, premptive pardon, which hasn't received that much coverage + as I am Grorp says, we would be obliged to cover context fairly thoroughly if we didn't want to inadvertently imply that Fauci had something illegal that needed pardoning. The body is sufficient coverage.Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. I agree with others above that this is not an important part of his life, as is reflected by the fact that it's only briefly mentioned in the body. Biden's choice to grant a preemptive pardon says more about Trump than about Fauci. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Content appears to me to be clearly WP:DUE as MOS:LEAD tell us "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Editors desire to remove the content for apparent concerns it puts the subject in a bad light is not our problem. The fact that a pardon may incorrectly imply some the appearance or correlation to impropriety is not our problem at wikipedia. The fact that the subject's actions were so controversial that they resulted in a US Presidential pardon the most obvious sign of the content being due. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does cover "prominent controversies" with the sentence His advice was frequently contradicted by Trump, and Trump's supporters alleged that Fauci was trying to politically undermine Trump's run for reelection. The pardon itself is not a "prominent controversy". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, it is "our problem" if our article suggests that Fauci has actually committed crimes requiring a presidential pardon in any section, and especially the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And BLP allows misleading statements in the lede that falsely suggest the subject is a criminal? If no, you should not be advocating for it. If yes, then that is called a legal loophole and you should not be advocating for it. See WP:WIKILAWYER. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with @Jtbobwaysf's logic here. If a statement is neutral and true (to what RS is saying) how can it be misleading? Not really up for editors to interpret, it an encyclopedia we just report what sources say. Also at the very least why not add a qualifying statement, I dont really think there is that much more content needed that would give context, especially if it is covered in the body. Or why not at a Explanatary Note? MaximusEditor (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hob & Muboshgu, nothing states that the subject is a criminal. The subject received a pardon and thanked the president for that pardon (both matters of undisputed fact). Nothing in that is confusing leading to the theoretically need to censorship for so called NPOV purposes. NPOV means neutral, it doesnt mean we endorse WP:PUFF for this article subject. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, only criminals are pardoned. This is a special situation, and mentioning the pardon without mentioning the reason is misleading. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you refer to as unusual and a special situation is in fact what makes it due, including any prominent controversies. The fact that you are swearing about it below on this take page points to how controversial it is to some editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, the "prominent controversy" isn't the pardon from Biden, it is Trump undermining Fauci during the height of the pandemic and threatening retribution afterwards. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The event was notable enough for Biden to make a statement on it. We can just attribute his denial of a crime, here. Fauci stated to Politico in response to the pardon he “committed no crime.” Why not let him deny it instead of us editors pretending it was a non event, that is not the encyclopedic approach. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Biden said something about it" is not the Wikipedia criterion for inclusion. And we do not attribute facts. Maybe you should just stop with the bad reasoning. Maybe we should just close this as WP:SNOW. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a statement is neutral and true (to what RS is saying) how can it be misleading? Bullshit. Liars who do not want to be caught lie by omission, by making true statements and omitting the context.
Example: "There were no extermination camps in Nazi Germany." True statement - all the extermination camps the Nazis built were in Poland - but obviously extremely misleading. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually had always understood that under US law, you could only receive a presidential pardon if you admitted your guilt. I got this from an interview with Gerald Ford, in the context of the pardon he granted Nixon. Ford claimed that accepting the pardon necessarily meant Nixon accepted his guilt. Nixon of course, long after resigning said that he had never done anything illegal, Ford claimed that accepting the pardon proved he had admitted otherwise. Pincrete (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether acceptance of a pardon implies guilt or not has been the subject of dispute for years, but most recently (2021) a federal court of appeals held that it does not.[4]Schazjmd(talk)17:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr could you explain your revert of my edit adding the attached photo to the Career > HIV/AIDS epidemic section of this article? All you said in the edit summary of your revert was "irrelevant".
I fail to see how a photograph of an ACT UP protest at the NIH with a sign reading "Dr. Fauci you are killing us" is not relevant to his involvement in the HIV/AIDS epidemic, a section that specifically mentions criticism on his handling of it? Imo, this is a clear contemporary visual representation of the text. The article specifically (currently) includes this:
In October 1988, protesters came to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fauci, who had become the institute's director in 1984, bore the brunt of the anger from the LGBTQ+ community who were largely ignored by the government.
The image gives a false, non-neutral depiction, does not represent Fauci's career or involvement in the COVID-19 pandemic AIDS epidemic, and is disparaging per WP:BLPIMAGE. Zefr (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
Done I'm not convinced either that he owns that other site. Schazjmd (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)