Talk:Anthony Fauci/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Politico article

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/18/anthony-fauci-interview-covid-00046189 Mapsax (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2022

Add a uniformed officer infobox.

module = infobox uniformed officer

embed = yes

embed_title = Uniformed service

allegiance = United States

branch = U.S. Public Health Service Commissoned Corps

serviceyears = 1969-1996

rank = Rear Admiral

---

Add categories related to the USPHS:

Category:United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps officers

Category:United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps admirals

Category:United States Public Health Service personnel Narthecium (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SWinxy (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Group of Flag Officers in Uniform assigned to the NIH. Dr. Fauci is in the front row, second from the left.

In this interview he discusses his motivation for joining PHS (Vietnam era, PHS most preferred):
Fauci, Anthony S. (March 7, 1989). "Interview with Dr. Anthony S. Fauci". In Their Own Words... NIH Researchers Recall the Early Tears of AIDS (Interview). Interviewed by Victoria A. Harden. National Institues of Health, Bethesda, Maryland: National Institutes of Health. Archived from the original on January 9, 2022. Retrieved July 23, 2022.

There are several instances of reference to his rank of Rear Admiral, such as this one:
Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service (COA) (July 11, 2022). "Health Leader of the Year". Facebook. Facebook. Retrieved July 23, 2022.

However, a better reference may be this photo, that shows Dr. Fauci in uniform with the rank of Rear Admiral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Narthecium (talk • contribs) 03:48, July 24, 2022 (UTC)

@Narthecium:  Partly done: I was able to find a reliable source regarding his years of service, according to a 1998 interview he retired in 1996 after 27 years of service, so after doing some WP:CALC that came out to 1969–1996. I was unable however to find a reliable source for his rank, and seeing as though we're dealing with WP:BLP, I'm not sure the cited Facebook posts passes that. The provided image convinces me personally, however I think that analysing ourselves from the photo that his rank at the time was a 2 star admiral, might constitute WP:OR even though it is right there. M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is the interview containing the dates:

Fauci, Anthony S. (July 16, 1998). "Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease". Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Oral History 1998 D (Interview). Interviewed by Melissa Klein. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland: National Institutes of Health. Archived from the original on March 8, 2022. Retrieved August 18, 2022. Narthecium (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@M16A3NoRecoilHax: Here's a source for Dr. Fauci's rank of Rear Admiral (Upper) and a more precise retirement date of August 1996.

"Retirements-August", Commisioned Corps Bulletin, x (9), Division of Commissioned Personnel, Program Support Center, DHHS: 15, September 1996 Narthecium (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Narthecium:  Done M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2022

Typo in the year 2219 should be 2019

• 2219: Bertrand Russell Society Award

to

• 2019: Bertrand Russell Society Award Shoepy (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Although Fauci denied gain-of-function research, NIH released evidence to the contrary

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-function-research/ Soheagle (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2022

"Add after" the existing line: In May 2021, Fauci denied that the National Institutes of Health supported "gain-of-function research" at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[100]

"Add this:" There are assertions within the scientific community that the definition of "gain-of-function research" was changed by Fauci after accusations were made that he funded such research in Wuhan. Newly released NIH documents suggest, according to experts, that the US funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

Reference: (1) https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21055989/understanding-risk-bat-coronavirus-emergence-grant-notice.pdf (2) https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-function-research/ Soheagle (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

New information regarding the vaccine

Date: 12/22

JUST IN - Gov. DeSantis receives approval from the Florida Supreme Court to impanel a grand jury to investigate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers.

Source: https://notabird.site/disclosetv/status/1606031265345327106 ... DiscloseTV is a very reliable source. Even when talking about alien disclosure (lulz), they are far more believable than the rugs y'all prefer to believe like New York Birdcage Liner and Washington Poo.

Fauci's goose is almost cooked.

[redacted libel]

105.160.94.175 (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)WhiteLivesMatterToo

WP:NOTFORUM applies here to most of this statement, so please do not continue this. But an investigation if Fauci is under subpoena certainly would be encyclopedic on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Disclose.tv is fake news, this discussion is pointless. I suggest deleting this section. User:Doug Weller

Need to correct Career section

Fauci’s Career section says he is still the NAID Director and should be corrected to state ghat his last day was Dec. 31, 2022 as the first section does. I cannot correct it because the page is locked. Ekbarber2 (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Corrected. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat misleading paragraph.

The paragraph that claims is somewhat misleading. “Due to Trump's opposition to CDC mask wearing guidelines and social distancing measures, which Fauci advocated, Fauci was criticized by right-wing pundits and received death threats that necessitated a security detail”.

1. Trump embraced people wearing masks according to CDC guidlines. He opposed mandating that everyone wear masks. 2. Trump supported and extended the social distancing guidlines multiple times.

To claim Trump opposed social distancing is a lie. To claim he opposed CDC mask guidelines is a lie. He only imposed making it mandated.

https://www.voanews.com/a/covid-19-pandemic_trump-embraces-face-masks-rejects-national-mandate/6193061.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/29/politics/trump-coronavirus-press-conference/index.html WhowinsIwins (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I've taken out "Due to Trump's opposition to CDC mask wearing guidelines and social distancing measures, which Fauci advocated", as it's not supported by the sources inline. We should though say something there about why there was a rise in threats. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023 interview

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/24/magazine/dr-fauci-pandemic.html Anything useful? Mapsax (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Georgetown University

Dr. Anthony Fauci To Join Georgetown Faculty as Distinguished University Professor (secondary sources also available) Best place(s) in the article for this? I almost put an "update" note at the top of the article but figured this was better. Mapsax (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

New Photograph

I've just made a series of portraits of Dr Fauci at his home. I think this one would be a good update to the current photograph.

Anthony Fauci in 2023 01

Cmichel67 (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed image 2

I've seen your new portrait photographs of Fauci and I'm impressed. However the proposed image's lighting is a bit too dark. I like this one better, it looks like an official portrait, the lighting is good and its a recent image. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree, the dark photo looks WP:PROMO as well, like its trying to make him a model. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Controversy

It looks like the page is missing a “Controversy” section 49.194.43.101 (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

No, controversy sections are deprecated in biographies as defamation magnets. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Acroterion if this is true, then I suggest you may have a lot of work to do, removing controversies sections from living people articles. They are all over the place. Can we have either some fairness or if we can’t have that, at least an acknowledgement of bias? 107.77.203.110 (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

We do have a lot of work to do. It would be helpful to address the removal of WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONs on the pages that have them. They violate WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful reply. 107.77.203.110 (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Muboshguare you saying here that these are not allowed any more and there’s an objective standard whereby they are being systematically removed? Or is it a convoluted series of rules that lends itself to bias/suggestions of bias? 107.77.203.110 (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Or put another way, you appear to be complaining about a problem that doesn't exist here. Go fix it where it exists. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Well good thing things aren’t always what they appear to you. There really is a problem. 107.77.203.110 (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Feel free to add the content inline into the sections. The policy only means that we dont create whole controversy sections normally, but you could name the section something more specific as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation

In articles concerning people like Steve Kirsch and Joseph Lapado the word "misinformation" with respect to COVID/vaccines comes up very frequently. Conservatives often argue that Wikipedia is biased, but I think this is a great opportunity to show that Wikipedia remains neutral. We need to make it clear that Anthony Fauci is a regular purveyor of COVID/vaccine misinformation.

- He said the vaccine is safe & effective. In fact, the recent NIH study showed that there are 2-7x increases in blood and heart conditions depending on the vaccine taken.

- He said vaccinated people become dead ends, i.e. they cannot spread COVID. This has also been shown to be misinformation.

There is no doubt Fauci's heart was in the right place, and ultimately I do believe the vaccine is a miracle of mankind. But he needs to be called out as a purveyor of misinformation, just like the anti-vaccine crowd regularly is. 2601:47:4783:1320:41D6:8E37:9F54:50B6 (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(1) The vaccine is safe and effective. You are misreading the conclusions of that NIH study. "The study does not suggest that the vaccines are the cause of the increases, and scientists say more research is needed to determine what causes this increased risk."

(2) Fauci did not say vaccinated people cannot spread COVID. See the transcript of his "dead end" remark. DR. FAUCI: And you know, JOHN, you said it very well. I could have said it better. It's absolutely the case. And that's the reason why we say when you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. And in other words, you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that's when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community. And that's exactly the reason, and you said it very well, of why we encourage people and want people to get vaccinated. The more people you get vaccinated, the safer the entire community is. He said the more vaccinated the community is, the less COVID will spread. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

1. I did not misread the conclusions of the NIH study. The numbers are accurate. In fact, the headline from the very article you sent me agrees: "A new study confirmed a slightly increased risk of several conditions following COVID-19 vaccination." In fact, I would argue THAT is a misreading of the NIH study, which does indeed show that the vaccine multiplies the chances for several health issues. However, since some of those health issues only occurred 1 in 100K people, showing that the vaccine created issues for 2 or 3 in 100K people is called a "slightly increased risk". It is not slight on a percentage basis.

2. The implication of a "dead end" is that the person cannot spread it. Thus, the community (some of which is unvaccinated) will have a significantly lower rate of infection. I don't see what part of that lengthy quote shows he believed vaccinated people could still spread it. 2601:47:4783:1320:4DAD:7736:1409:3B19 (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(1) Rare increases that they do not conclude are the result of the vaccine do not demonstrate that the vaccine is unsafe.

(2) Never did he say that vaccinated people cannot spread it, as far as I am aware. He said that the more people are vaccinated, the less it will spread. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The OP's premise is a BLP violation. I've removed it once before. Since it was restored and replied to, I'll leave it here for now. The OP is warned for defamation, however carefully couched. Read the 3 CT notices at the top of this talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not take it as one, because the IP editor seems to suggest that it was not deliberate on Fauci's part. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I am less optimistic, since it appears to be an attempt at broadly labeling Fauci as misinforming on the basis of isolated incidents. Acroterion (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Usually I'm the editor who takes a stricter view of these sort of comments. Interesting. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:RS, then WP:OR and especially WP:SYNTH. We have reliable sources saying that Kirsch and Ladapo are spreading misinformation. We do not have such sources about Fauci, we only have your conclusions. People have refuted those conclusions, but that is not necessary for the purpose of this page. We cannot use your conclusions in any case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2024

Add Daily Wire expose concerning Anthony Fauci from 1980-2024. 72.84.70.156 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Detractors note the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What did Daily Wire take out of context? Pickas90 (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

anyone want to add this?

I added this to the West Nile page but it was reverted, so maybe this is the best page for it if someone wants to add it under this sentence: " In August 2024, Fauci was hospitalized with a case of West Nile virus which he likely contracted from a mosquito bite that occurred in his backyard"

Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently shared his harrowing experience with West Nile virus in a New York Times Opinion Guest Essay. The virus left him hospitalized and struggling to recover. Despite his decades-long career fighting viruses, West Nile virus caught him off guard, highlighting its growing threat, especially as climate change enables mosquitoes to spread the disease more widely. Fauci urges proactive action, including international collaborations for vaccine and antiviral development. He emphasizes that we must not wait for a greater crisis to address this virus, calling for increased public awareness and scientific resources. Weavingowl (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Website link needs updating

Dr. Anthony Fauci's "Website" under "Personal details" is now linked to take users to the current NIAID director's page. Consider replacing with any of the following:

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/anthony-s-fauci-md-bio

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/anthony-s-fauci-md

https://anthonyfaucimd.com/ Josache00 (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Robert Koch Medal not Prize?

As far as I know he earned the 2013 Robert Koch Medal and not the prize as stated in this article so does some one want to change prize into medal they are different awards? source: another wikipedia article concerning the prize/medal 2001:16B8:AA29:9E00:A506:6F98:F5A5:98DC (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025

Why is there no discussion of the controversies in regards to his handling of Covid 19? 2603:8080:3B00:EB9:84B9:F97B:5B87:F7C7 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: There seems to be enough content on his handling of Covid-19 in the section Anthony Fauci#COVID-19 pandemic, with the potential controversies as a result of it TNM101 (chat) 15:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it fails to acknowledge the gravity of reasonable criticisms of Fauci in connection with the government's response to the Covid 19 pandemic. Currently the article falls far short of the standards of an encyclopedia. It reads as if drafted by a public relations firm. 76.98.245.38 (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The first Trump government's horrible mishandling of the pandemic is not Fauci's fault. I am not aware of any "reasonable critism" of him about it. Can you give any sources? No wackjobs please. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

"Unprecedented pardon"

Gerald Ford also pardoned Richard Nixon before he was charged for the Watergate, as far as I'm aware. Shoshin000 (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Biodefense

There should be a subsection in his career that goes more in-depth into his work with biodefense after 9/11. He was a major figure in the Bush administration's notable work to conduct research on bioweapons as part of their plan to secure the country against terrorism, combining that work with research into natural pathogens.[2][3][4][5][6] Manuductive (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Pardon date

@Jfire The date on the pardon seems to be January 19th, it's clearly written on it. Or perhaps there is a technicality I did not understand? Shoshin000 (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

That's WP:PRIMARY. We go by what WP:SECONDARY sources report, and they consistently say the 20th.

• New York Times: in his final hours in office on Monday
• CNN: Clemency for ... Dr. Anthony Fauci ... was announced early Monday morning.
• AP: The decision Monday by Biden

What may have happened is that the document was printed and dated on Sunday, but Biden did not make the final decision until Monday morning. Jfire (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Ostensible rationale for preemptive pardon

@Jtbobwaysf requested that material from the lead be discussed here. The material in question is ostensibly in order to thwart potential prosecution by the incoming second Trump administration. This is supported by the cited New York Times article, which says President Biden granted a wave of pre-emptive pardons ... to guard ... high-profile figures from a promised campaign of “retribution” by his incoming successor, Donald J. Trump. ... In an extraordinary effort by an outgoing president to derail political prosecutions by an incoming president, Mr. Biden pardoned ... Dr. Anthony S. Fauci. Jtbobwaysf could you explain why you think this falls afoul of WP:CRYSTAL? As I see it, this is a statement about Biden's stated rationale and beliefs, not a prediction in Wiki-voice about the future. I am open to wordsmithing the language to make this clearer, but I think it's perfectly acceptable content for the lead (and for the body). As WP:CRYSTAL states: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. That is what this is. Jfire (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Three problems here, none of them I see easily overcome.

First "ostensibly" is clearly WP:WEASEL.

Second the entire statement is obvious WP:CRYSTAL. Just because the nyt said it, doesnt mean it isn't crystal. We dont just take crystal statements and regurgitate them in wikivoice.

Third it is grossly undue as it implies that we know with sufficient clarity what someone in the future might do. At wikipedia we cover things that have actually happended, or in some cases super notable predictions, but in that case they have to be attributed. Here we are not going to attribute (at least I dont think we are) this statement to the NYT and just parrot it here at wikipedia. We are amplifying the voice of the NYT for no reason, and thus it is WP:UNDUE for weight reasons (as well as the synth and crystal above). It is also undue as excessive weight is given to summarzing something that doesn't even have a section in the article. If you would like to create a whole section on the pardon (I dont see one now) and then summarize it in the lead, then we can discuss that, but that doesnt exist for the moment.

Question: Did Biden actually say (and we have a quote for it), that he thought Fauci would be charged by Trump?

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I also wonder if it's misleading to mention the pardon with no explanation in the lede.

Shouldn't there be something mentioned, both in the lede and in the portion of the body of the article that deals with the pardon, of the repeated calls from figures on the political right for Fauci to be prosecuted? There were even members of Congress calling for him to be put in prison for unspecified crimes. One of the sources cited here, an Associated Press article, says in its very headline that the pardon was issued as "a guard against potential 'revenge' by Trump." Can that information be moved up into the article itself?

Also, the paragraph about the pardon in the lede is longer than the paragraph about the pardon in the body of the article. Shouldn't it be the other way around? As it stands, the lede gives the impression that 20% of what a reader should know about Fauci is something that happened on one day in 2025.

The bizarre attack on Fauci from the right continue, by the way. Here's a new article in The Washington Post:

"A mural of Tony Fauci was meant to inspire staff. Then NIH took it down. Five years after the coronavirus pandemic began, Trump officials continue to blame Fauci for missteps — and are minimizing his presence on his old campus." NME Frigate (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

"The bizarre attack on Fauci from the right continue, by the way." we dont have a place for this at wikipedia. Yes, the article should also cover the pardon, maybe the most of it should be moved down into the article with a shorter summary in the LEAD. But I doubt the pardon will be removed from the LEAD, it is quite WP:DUE. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The point is that the pardon didn't cone out of the blue. As one of the specific stories already cited in this Wikipedia article says, the pardon was issued as "a guard against potential 'revenge' by Trump." But as currently written, the article offers no explanation (except for someone who dives into the sources) for why the pardon was issued, but it should.

And in my opinion, the politicized attacks on Fauci are more notable than the pardon that resulted from those attacks. Others may disagree. NME Frigate (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I explained above the issues with the content and the sourcing. Wikipedia has more important policies than the content on this article. Readers can speculate for themselves why Biden pardoned him. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Including it in the lede without any context seems odd, and it could be read as implying that Fauci did or may have committed offenses. I think including the entire explanation behind the pardon in the lede is, however, undue for the lede, so it's probably better to leave it out of the lede

Certainly the context of the attacks from the right seem far more due than the pardon Tristario (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It's possible that this pardon is no longer in effect, according to a statement Donald Trump posted to his social media network on March 16, 2025: Trump wrote that any pardon Joe Biden signed by Autopen. (It's not really possible, but it is notable that the man styling himself the president of the United States says that this is the case.) NME Frigate (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Its possible. But we dont really know. We can start to follow that if there are some WP:RS that follow it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

1. This doesn't have anything to do with CRYSTAL. 2. A topic should not receive more real estate in the lead than it does in the body and I have shortened this passage until content in the body warrants more detail in the lead. GMG^talk 17:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Earlier the discussion was more crystal, as it was some conjecture on what might happen in the future. That has been cleaned up, the issue I think you are discussing is LEAD WEIGHT, and I agree with you, that most of this is just stuffing stuff into the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Archived discussions hard to find

The most interesting discussions have now been archived, but there are no link to the x2 archive sub-pages, neither from the desktop version of the talk-page, nor from the mobile one. Most WP users do not know how to access sub-pages. I believe there is a template to provide the links and search functionality on their contents, is my recollection correct? Sperxios (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

In desktop view, the previous archives are listed just above the archive-search box, in the header templates. Schazjmd (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Allegedly Misled Congress

"At best, Dr. Fauci misled Congress when he insisted that the NIH wasn’t funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan lab. At worst, that research sparked the pandemic with U.S. funding."

Surely this claim, or fact (I'm unsure if it has been established) should be added to the article, and others on Covid? 2001:8003:548A:A100:DD7E:7490:7C2A:5D0A (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal has been an anti-science propaganda outlet for quite a while, pushing climate change denial and covidiocy. I don't think it is a reliable source for this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

WSJ is clearly an WP:RS for this and pretty much any other mainstream claim. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

"Fauci misled Congress" is a "mainstream claim"? Is that because Trumpism is now "mainstream" in the US? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:CLEARLY eh? The WSJ is a shit source for pretty much everything (except maybe limited commentary on financial stuff). Pretty astonishing to see it being proposed. Bon courage (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It's an opinion column written by Mike Gallagher. Why should this radio host's opinion be mentioned? (If it is, it must be attributed.) Schazjmd (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. We dont normally include opinion and thus I retract my support. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

References

On the pardoning of Fauci's "offenses"

"On January 20, 2025, President Biden granted Fauci a full and unconditional pardon for any offenses he may have committed after January 1, 2014."

If someone with no knowledge about Anthony Fauci were to read this article, they would probably be concluding at this point that Anthony Fauci is some kind of criminal. The accusations were baseless nonsense so why mention the pardon so prominently as the final paragraph of the lead section and with this particular wording? 50.86.201.83 (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree and revised with Special:Diff/1289029530 which comes from the CNN and NYT sources. The previous wording of "offenses he may have committed after January 1, 2014" appears to be inflammatory, and has no reliable source (apologies for the misstatement) actually comes from the pardon language itself, shown here, but the 2014 date does not apply to the reason Fauci was pardoned to deter Trump's revenge, so seems appropriate to leave it out. It is mentioned in the article under Biden administration. Zefr (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

We dont insert WP:CRYSTAL into the lead of a BLP and make crystal statements about another BLP subject, regardless of what the reader might think. WP:BLPRESTORE applies to this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

No problem with your revision, although the possible "retribution" is not really CRYSTAL, but quotes from the first sentence of the NYT source, which stated: "guard members of his own family and other high-profile figures from a promised campaign of “retribution” by his incoming successor, Donald J. Trump." Zefr (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Just because the NYT predicts it doesnt mean we are going to adopt their crystal as our crystal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Trump called for retribution on his political foes throughout the 2024 campaign and has since taken actions against some of them. There is no CRYSTAL there.

I agree though that the pardon does not belong in the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a reasonable concern, with others expressing similar sentiments above. I don't see the pardon as lead-worthy at all. It got routine coverage in the immediate aftermath, but coverage of Fauci ever since is frequently focused on other, more major aspects of his biography. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Its pretty notable. Want to run an RFC on it? Seems the objections here are more with how it makes the subject look and not wether or not it is due per MOS:LEAD. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

What is notable about it is the between-the-lines content: that Fauci is in the crosshairs of a vindictive criminal he angered by being honest and competent, and therefore needs protection. But because we are not actually saying that, it will turn into a nebulous semper aliquid haeret for someone who has no idea what it is all about. Which makes it very misleading without deeper analysis, and therefore inappropriate for the lead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

We dont protect individual article subjects. We only provide coverage to things in due weight and we summarize in the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

In a misleading way that damages the person's reputation? I don't think that is covered by the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)