Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:37, 3 October 2021

This is an archive of past discussions about Anthony Fauci. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ebola hearing

Is Fauci's role in the ebola hearing so notable that it deserves its own section? Because it certainly doesn't seem that way from what's in there.

At the most, maybe there should be a section on his tenure at NIAIC during the Obama administration, mentioning his role in the government's response to the ebola crisis. Or maybe (maybe) a section devoted to his overall role in the ebola crisis. Jesuschex (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Jesuschex I encourage anyone to do the things you suggested. Fauci has done a lot of big things in his life and among those, it is a peculiarity of the media that his impersonal statements of the consensus of NIAID have gotten more attention that almost anything else he has done. In those sources, ebola is the real news, not anything Fauci did other than speak as a figurehead. I do not think that content is wrong because that is the record in public sources, but it certainly could be presented better and with more of his work. I am glad someone added it as a first step. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Zenodo link rollback

Am I to understand that resources indexed by the OpenAIRE initiative and shared via Zenodo are all violations of WP:COPYLINK#Linking_to_copyrighted_works? My edit was reverted due to an edit with OAbot, and I want to know more about the claim that it was a violation of copyright. Thanks! —Tod Robbins (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You cannot assume that papers are posted legitimately. The paper at zenodo was the actual science paper that was published. Science's reprint policy is here - that article at Zenodo does not comply. Zenodo is full of such copyright violations and there is a request at Wikipedia_talk:OABOT#Zenodo to remove it from the suggestions, as too many people are being uncareful with OABOT suggestions for Zenodo. You (and every user of OABOT) are responsible for every edit you make, even if it is bot-assisted. You violated WP:COPYLINK. Please be more careful in the future. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

All of the links to Fauci's papers at Zenodo are flagged "open access." https://zenodo.org/search?page=1&size=20&q=fauci,%20# --Nbauman (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

New interview

Hope that's useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It is. Thank you. I have added it to external links, pending possible use as a source. Kablammo (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the name of the disease?

I reverted an edit which merely duplicated what was there, but the name added by Natmazz was probably more clear than what was there. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Leading expert on infectious disease

Whoever keeps removing this, needs to stop. Its important to emphasize this to counter the spread of the conspiracy theories. ToddGrande (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Because the sentence at the start of the paragraph below already says exactly that. You need to recognize wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia and stop using pointed language. Natureium (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox photo

• Dr. Anthony Fauci.jpg (2004)
• Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director (26759498706).jpg (Pharexia, Special:Diff/945258637, 2007)
• Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director (26511521050) (half length crop).jpg (AntiCompositeNumber, Special:Diff/947462396, 2003)
• Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director (26759498706).jpg (JLo-Watson, Special:Diff/948017163, 2007)
• Anthony Fauci.jpg (Netoholic, Special:Diff/950023518, 2018)
• Anthony Fauci 2020.jpg (TDKR Chicago 101, Special:Diff/952299824, 2020)
• Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director (26759498706).jpg (Corkythehornetfan, Special:Diff/953192408, 2007)

Over the past two months, the infobox photo has gone through the changes shown above. In summary, the arguments for the various images have been that the previous image looks bad, is too old, or is not official. It's gone through enough changes at this point that an actual discussion is warranted.

I'm not a fan of the official portrait, as the shadows down his left side and the right side of his face are out of place. He's a scientist, not some movie villain hiding in the dark. I don't like the 2018 photo either, as it was taken at an odd angle and is cropped far too closely. The 2020 photo is slightly better in that regard, but I still prefer the 2003 photo. It's also an official NIH portrait, just slightly older. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Support the 2020 photo I cropped the image specifically so that this page can have a recent pic of a subject who has been recently been a person of national interest amid the COVID outbreak. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support the 2003 or 2007 official photo – The standard for government officials is to use the official photo; unless there is a consensus otherwise. The official photos look nicer as well. I'm support either the 2003 or 2007 photo. Corky 05:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Any photo not older than a couple years - This is per the guidance at MOS:LEADIMAGE - a reader would expect to see recent photos that represent how the subject appears today. Any photo which significantly departs from the subject's current appearance (such as being from 12-13 years ago) can be instantly eliminated from consideration. -- Netoholic @ 07:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support 2003 portrait I think it's the best image as it portrays him in a clinical setting with the shelves behind him. Besides slightly whiter hair, he essentially looks the same as today. The 2007 portrait currently in use would be my second choice. ~ HAL333 19:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Deborah Birx's article uses a recent image over an outdated official portrait. Shouldn't Fauci follow? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support 2007 portrait Idk if this is ongoing still, but i dont see anything wrong with the image that the article has now, even if its from 2007 he still looks recognisable, i mean theres a difference between someone who has aged a lot in in those years, and Fauci. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support 2020 photo per Netoholic and TDKR Chicago 101. I must say I found it really strange to see such an old photo as the lead image here. --Andreas JN466 21:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support 2020 photo per Netoholic, TDKR Chicago 101, and Jayen466. With everyone looking at this article in these times, it would make sense to have an image from this period. Geminin667 (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

International language edit from 'in the country' to 'in the USA'

'Fauci is widely seen to be one of the most trusted medical figures in the country' should be written as 'Fauci is widely seen to be one of the most trusted medical figures in the USA'. This sentence may not make sense outside of the USA, in my case I thought he was a professional who was in the UK that did work in America. Aside from not necessarily making sense, we should try to write in a way accessible to anyone who speaks English. I do concede that sense can be inferred from context but it is unnecessary I feel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryhog (talk • contribs) 11:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The immediately preceding sentence describes Fauci as one of the lead members of the Trump Administration's White House Coronavirus Task Force addressing the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. In this sense, the next sentence using the phrase Fauci is widely seen to be one of the most trusted medical figures in the country can only be interpreted as meaning the United States (the country mentioned immediately preceding). Use of "the United States" again in this context would be unnecessarily awkward and wordy. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 11:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Fauci funding Wuhan biolab for gain-of-function studies

How come there's no mention of this even after appearing in an allegedly "respected mainstream publication" like Newsweek (and others)?: https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741

Oh wait, I know why - because WP is weaponized to support false official narratives, more "mainstream" than "mainstream" due to WP:RS/WP:V + WP:FRINGE which define the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages as "verifiability, not truth", and "verifiability" means self-referential majority view of "respected mainstream publications" which have long been nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.237.225.72 (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, because Newsweek hasn't been a "respected mainstream publication" since 2013. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Secondly, because this hatchet piece is an example of why it's no longer respected. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a good piece that describes the situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, Buzzfeed is a "respected mainstream publication", suuuure. And "There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable." Yeah, they're not the most in-your-face fake news of all, they have built a reputation of honest reliable news reporters, not as political activists willing to lie all the time. Absolutely insane. I mean, just imagine for a moment that it was Trump (or anyone else they want to destroy) who had funded these gain-of-function studies... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.237.225.72 (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This is covered in sources other than Newsweek, e.g - https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-admin-pulls-nih-grant-coronavirus-research-ties/story?id=70418101. But it is the NIH who did the funding not Fauci, so I don't think it belongs in this article. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 17:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Science is a good source . TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• According to Newsweek, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses. Yes, he does leads NIAID, but directors of NIH institutes normally do not decide which specific grants/projects will or will not be funded. This is decided by peer review of projects by NIH Study Sections. The director of an Institute suppose to only influence rather than unilaterally decide the general research priorities of their Institute like here. So, he has nothing to do with Wuhan funding (it was funded only indirectly). That has been decided by people from one of NIH Study Sections. Yes, he probably knew about the project, this is all. But of course, in exceptional cases, someone from the very top can cut the funding . That has been criticized, and rightly so. A dangerous research? Yes, certainly. But what are the possible benefits and what precautions can be taken? Perhaps this worth the risk? Or not? This can only be decided by groups of experts, exactly as it is usually done. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems that when he's being specifically asked in press conferences whether he believes the virus could've escaped from the Wuhan lab, he should've disclosed that the agency he was heading had been funding that exact lab. I'm not saying it necessarily needs to go in the article right now, but if someone would happen to include his opinions on the Wuhan lab escape theory (he seems to be against it), this would definitely have to appear as a disclaimer. 46.109.139.100 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2020: Early life and education

This edit request to Anthony Fauci has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "Early life and education" section, "The pharmacy was ... one neighborhood away from his family home in Bensonhurst" is a misreading of the cited journal reference, which actually says: "The Faucis ran a neighborhood pharmacy at 13th Avenue and 83rd Street and lived in an apartment above." So, keeping the same journal reference, please change:

  "one neighborhood away from his family home in Bensonhurst."

to either

  "directly beneath the family apartment."

or

  "one neighborhood away from his grandparents in Bensonhurst."

Many thanks. —72.68.81.94 (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for your contribution! — Tartan357 (Talk) 06:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Self Isolation

Dr. Fauci will be self isolating himself starting May 9, 2020 after being exposed to Covid patients in the White house — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jainvaibhav1307 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Fauci

I don’t understand why it is written that his father Fauci married Eugenia Fauci. It must be a mistake and should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.160.31 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't find that anywhere. The article says Fauci was born in Brooklyn, New York City, to Stephen A. Fauci and Eugenia Abys Fauci, owners of a pharmacy. What are you seeing? Schazjmd (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

swiss origins

there are doubts about his swiss origins, because sites say sometime Giovanni Abyss was swiss sometime son of swiss parents.. --2.226.12.134 (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide citations to support or contradict his origins? A statement without support does not help us determine if this should be addressed. Jurisdicta (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2020

This edit request to Anthony Fauci has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change if the administration "started mitigation earlier" to if the administration HAD "started mitigation earlier" 69.127.210.231 (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Schazjmd (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

current event tag?

Somebody added a "current event" tag to the article. I don't think it belongs there. He is no more in the news than he has been for the last 3 or 4 months - actually less right now. There is no rush to add current information - in fact the only edit today was to add the current events tag! Anyone agree that we should remove it? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree on removal. Schazjmd (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I just removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

italics

under § Memberships, it says:

’’ and as author, coauthor, or editor of more than 1,000 scientific publications, including several textbooks.

... which is causing the last part of the sentence to be italicized. i propose changing the two ’ marks to two ' marks for uniformity and so the last part of the sentence is not italicized. i have no idea how to use the template, so hopefully someone can come along and help.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

173.85.192.32 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Schazjmd (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

He was born in 24th December 1940. So, in two days, he will be 80. Yet, It is written that he is 79 on the page which is false. So, I request change about this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.2.14.93 (talk)

 Not done: The article is correct as written. 1940 to 2020 is 80 years, so he's turning 80 this year (and is 79 now). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

New infobox image

Honestly, the current infobox image is pretty mediocre. It isn’t even close to contemporary, and it isn’t even a photograph from his period of greatest notability. I propose we change the image to this. It’s of similar quality, and it’s FAR more recent. Misplaced Pages policy is to generally use an image from the subject’s period of greatest notability, and I think that we can all agree that the answer for Fauci is NOT 2007. Any objections? The Image Editor (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

In your proposed image, the doctor looks really young. The source material does not say when he was photographed. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Image Editor: & @BeenAroundAWhile:: Refer to the ongoing discussion -> here. I agree that the lead image must be a more recent image and we have candidates that were photographed in 2020. I'm honestly surprised its taking awhile even though it appears the overall consensus is that the current image is not suitable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say the photo of him in the dark jacket and blue shirt on the other page is more like the present-day guy than any of the others. As for the length of time in deciding, you can ask for more opinions at WP:Request for comment, which might bring in others to help read a decision. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Dr

hello i am new at this and opologize in advance if i am writing in the wrong place. I understand the page can not be edited but wish to make one suggestion for experiment sake of using this new website (for me)... i recently watched an interview with Professor Scott Atlas, in that interview his title professor was displayed before his name as is the custom in human society to address a professor or doctor by their title preceding their name usually abrieviated as Prof. or Dr. ... particularly if it is in a sentence where a Prof. is being discredited by a Dr. it is glaringly obvious, the blatant and transparent bias for those of us reading that sentence if we happen to already be familiar with the individual... for those who are unfamiliar with the individual, the writer's obvious intent to become partisan by omission of title for only one of two certified academics in argument is, needless to say, completely lost... once you click on the link, you discover that the newspaper did the same. A brief cursory glance at the wikipedia page of the unfairly discredited academic does however reveal that even wikipedia does actually admit he is a professor, so it seems only fair to call him Prof. in the same sentence as his academic counterpart is correctly labelled as Dr. ...or is that too much semantics for how it works here?? idk, pls tell me, cheers Gronk McNutsak (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC) : Hi Gronk McNutsak and welcome to Misplaced Pages. On Misplaced Pages, we do not add titles per MOS:CREDENTIAL. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Gronk McNutsak I realize what you mean now. I am unsure why Dr. was listed in the infobox section where the name should be. If anything, it should be listed under honorific_prefix if used at all. I apologize if this was previously discussed and I have missed this. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You have my deepest respect for your success in finding out what Gronk was trying to say. That feat was far beyond me. Tip for @Gronk McNutsak: "Change X to Y" is generally better understood than long-winded justifications for a desired change that is never clearly expressed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Photo with President Bush

If you look at the photo that is clearly not the Presidential Medal of Freedom as mentioned in the photo caption. I am unsure what medal it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atwalker1993 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The medal in the photograph is the National Medal of Science, which he was awarded in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactsDon'tCareAboutYourFeelings (talk • contribs) 05:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. The file description says "National Medal of Science", but dates the photo in 2007. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

HIV section

"1981 was the first he heard of the virus and after he and his team of researchers began looking for a vaccine or treatment for this novel virus, though they would meet a number of obstacles such as the F.D.A."

This is a bit weird. Why would the FDA be an obstacle in the search for a vaccine or treatment? That needs an explanation. Also, does it matter when he first heard about it? (Is the sentence missing a word? maybe "and after that he and his team"?) --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Selected Publications

The following published journal article should be added to the list of Selected Publications as it is of particular interest during the COVID19 Pandemic: Morens DM, Fauci AS (April 2007). "The 1918 influenza pandemic: Insights for the 21st century". The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 195 (7): 1018–1028. https://doi.org/10.1086/511989. PMID 17330793.

Added. Good suggestion. S T C Jones (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anthony S. Fauci. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929120428/http://hcr3.isiknowledge.com/author.cgi?id=366&cb=7149 to http://hcr3.isiknowledge.com/author.cgi?id=366&cb=7149
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051113161655/http://aidshistory.nih.gov/transcripts/bios/Anthony_Fauci.html to http://aidshistory.nih.gov/transcripts/bios/Anthony_Fauci.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony S. Fauci. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529223528/http://www.sciencewatch.com/sept-oct2003/sw_sept-oct2003_page1.htm to http://www.sciencewatch.com/sept-oct2003/sw_sept-oct2003_page1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Gain of Function

https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/F30-AI149928-02?fbclid=IwAR0GpjoUpEzz6NqiAZA2Q8tenZPNlVy0hXFLeD9csgvu-wRtx7fY-tdu7Ko "I will completely characterize the ability of mutations to the Lassa virus entry protein to mediate antibody escape from three human monoclonal antibodies currently undergoing therapeutic development. These complete maps of antibody resistance will determine from which antibody it is most difficult for the virus to escape and help evaluate and refine potential antibody immunotherapies." This grant is currently active. Isn't this the definition of GOF? Here is a perma-URL to the general subject (link removed) You need not log on to FB. Charles Juvon (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Juvon: - not sure if this is an RS, or a secondary source. Furthermore, how does this relate to the subject of this article, Fauci? starship.paint (exalt) 08:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: - You might be correct. Perhaps we should lay a foundation with the recent Paul / Fauci conversation in the Senate. I don't see that in the article. Charles Juvon (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Juvon: - well, what's the reliable source coverage of that conversation? starship.paint (exalt) 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: - I'll head for your Talk page to see if we can formulate a "to do" list. Charles Juvon (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You might want to read this recent article in the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/18/fact-checking-senator-paul-dr-fauci-flap-over-wuhan-lab-funding/ I'm not going to edit the article as it's far outside my area of expertise. deisenbe (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Clearly needs inclusion but.. it doesn't make Fauci look that good.. so.. Reaper7 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)