Jump to content

Talk:Anthony Fauci: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Self Isolation: new section
Line 207: Line 207:


:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> - Thanks for your contribution!&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000;">''Tartan357''</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Tartan357|Talk]]) 06:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> - Thanks for your contribution!&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Tartan357|<span style="color:#990000;">''Tartan357''</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk: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

Revision as of 02:49, 10 May 2020

Template:Vital article

Template:COVID-19 sanctions


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

video

pd video here could be migrated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yJDq9DCUMw , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNxw2HCTks8 Victor Grigas (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. video2commons is working on a VOA video tonight. I will try to add it to this article tomorrow. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Achievments

From the article, "Fauci has contributed to the understanding of how HIV destroys the body's defenses leading to the progression to AIDS. He has outlined the mechanisms of induction of HIV expression by endogenous cytokines. [citation needed]"

I would like to remove the "citation needed" and think I found a reference. However, I am not a scientist and don't know if this is correct. Here is the citation: Fauci, Anthony, 12 December 1996 Host Factors and the Pathogenesis of HIV-induced Disease, Nature, 384 (6609), 529-34, PMID: 8955267, DOI: 10. 1038/384529a0

I realize this is an old article, but the "citation needed" insert is referring to something he did in the past.

Could someone with a scientific and medical background take a look? Thanks. Cleveland Todd (talk) 18: 31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

In Reply to @Cleveland Todd:

With regard to the Nature article (Fauci, 1996), this is a review article, written by Dr. Fauci, in one of the most prestigious and general scientific journals. The author's own work is not a good source for the significance of his own work. I do not have a 3rd party reference, but you might continue searching forward citations, for instance at https://www.altmetric.com/details/3235299 In my library's ProQuest database the link to this particular article is broken.
In addition, this is a single account of that time period (https://naturemicrobiologycommunity.nature.com/users/332974-john-moore/posts/56543-how-hiv-enters-cells-it-was-the-best-of-times-it-was-the-worst-of-times-by-john-p-moore). At paragraph 4, it indicates that Fauci's role was to communicate from scientists to politicians recent developments in HIV research, particularly, a key mechanism that allowed HIV to infect cells. (Those discoveries, made by others, also described reasons ("host factors") why some people are less susceptible to HIV infection.)
The magazine of Holy Cross has an entertaining feature article about Fauci: https://www.holycross.edu/departments/publicaffairs/hcm/summer02/features/fauci.html
Sentences in this section of the Wikipedia article are identical to those in this NIAID biography: https://web.archive.org/web/20071030171118/http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/directors/biography/
It is my opinion that this entire section needs a rewrite.

Neurogeek (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Reply to @Neurogeek: A quick search showed that Fauci authored or co-authored around 1000 articles, showing a mix of reviews and research papers, indicating a more active research background than a scientific communicator might do. Also generally on prestigious journals such as Nature, review articles are invited, and normally only some of the most well known and pioneering researchers on the subject are invited to review on the relevant subject. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Fauci%20AS%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=8955267

In Reply to @Neurogeek: Thanks. Very helpful. I'll take a look at the entire section. One more question: I understand how being the author of an article cited in one's Wikipedia article is not a good source. Fauci has been a co-author in a number of articles in reputable journals that discussed this very point. Could one of those be a more acceptable citation? Cleveland Todd (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Reply to @Cleveland Todd:

Thanks for continuing the conversation. Fauci's Wikipedia page is getting one hundred times more views this week than three weeks ago (https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Anthony_Fauci). People will appreciate a more accurate and better written article.
Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. Further guidance on the biographies of living people, suggests avoiding primary and "self-published" sources in biographies.
I had a chance to read the Nature review article (Fauci, 1996). Therein, Dr. Fauci detailed the molecular mechanisms of HIV infection, as then known, and particularly highlighted the then-newsworthy discoveries of the most important molecules involved in HIV infection. His account focuses on the science, and does not explicitly highlight the importance of his own work. The question of "What were Dr. Fauci's greatest contributions to medicine?", is not addressed. It would require "original research", in the Wikipedia sense, to determine what the Fauci labs' contributions were to that exciting set of discoveries. Accordingly, I suggest not citing this article to establish what were Fauci's most important medical/scientific contributions.
A biography would be better. The Washington Post ran an article in 2007 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2007/09/28/anthony-fauci/), referencing Facui's receipt of the National Medal of Science and the Lasker Prize.
The Lasker Prize biography (http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/show/advancements-in-aids-relief-and-biodefense/)
The National Medal of Science biography (https://www.nationalmedals.org/laureates/anthony-s-fauci-md)
I hope this helps. Neurogeek (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ps - Elsewhere on this talk page, Bluerasberry (talk · contribs) rightly observed, "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." Neurogeek (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • for awards check out Wikidata's entry for this at Anthony Fauci (Q573246). Wikidata has a way of assisting wiki editors to import lists, like "all the people who have won a given award". It happens that it is easier to identify all awards, then see who won them, than it is to start with a person and find their awards. Some of that list at Wikidata lacks references but see if that could be a starting point for examination. Thanks for pinging me Neurogeek and Cleveland Todd I see that you are a bit new and probably overwhelmed but give a go at looking at Wikidata in this example, because if you see the kinds of things stored there then you should be better able to use this as a resource from now on. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Reply to @Neurogeek and Blue Rasberry: Thanks to both of you for your well-thought responses and tips for better citations. What I will do is add the Nature review article to Fauci's Selected Publications list. Cleveland Todd (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Reply to @Cleveland Todd and Bluerasberry: Thanks for pointing out the information in Wikidata at Anthony Fauci (Q573246). I started updating the links to professional societies biographies and awards statements there. The Lectureship Award from the American Association for Clinical Chemistry in 1998, indicated Facui's role in understanding HIV infection. I included that as a reference on the main page.

New interview

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

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)[reply]

Undue

So this: "He said that the final case fatality rate of those who are infected will likely be closer to 1% than the 2% initially estimated by the World Health Organization, which is still ten times the 0.1% reported rate for seasonal flu.[15][16][17]". This isn't about him, it's about the crisis. So cool, he was right. But with all of the media attention he has received over this, a short paragraph with what seems like a political motivation seems inappropriate. But I welcome other opinions. (I advocate striking the sentence, and adding more about his life ... don't have time to do it myself now, and would want others to weigh in before touching something this sensitive). Isingness (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text as it is now - special:permalink/948061938#COVID-19
I fail to recognize the sensitivity or the politics here. Wikipedia mirrors what reliable sources say. This information is here because this is the information which two of those three cited sources featured as their headline. I have no objection to someone changing anything, but I also am not able to recognize a problem here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, thank you for your response. I'll wait on if anyone else has an issue. It's a sensitive subject, so want to engage here before making any adjustments to the page. Isingness (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I added that statement, which he made after some were downplaying the danger by a making a comparison to seasonal flu. His addressing that point does not suggest a political motivation on his part, but rather a medical and scientific judgment by a expert uniquely qualified to make it.
As for whether it is "undue" in its prominence: It is very topical now, and likely will remain so given its import. This article should be expanded to a more comprehensive treatment of his career. I hope to participate in that effort. Kablammo (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Death threats.. why and by whom?

Should the article be more specific? 

   But that style has led to intense criticism and backlash among corners of the conservative internet and some of Trump's supporters. ... Right-wing outlets have posited that Fauci may be trying to undermine the president. Conservative provocateurs such as xxxx have been among those tweeting criticism of Fauci. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/490725-fauci-given-security-detail-after-receiving-threats

  But Fauci has also become a public target for rightwing pundits and bloggers who believe he is undermining the president. An article in the rightwing outlet xxx called Fauci a “Deep-State ­Hillary Clinton-loving stooge”, and referred to a seven-year-old email in which he praised Clinton for her stamina through the Benghazi hearings. xxx, the president of the conservative group xxx, a conservative group; and xxx, host of the far-right online talkshow xxx, have also reinforced Fauci criticisms and conspiracy theories. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/dr-fauci-security-reportedly-expanded-as-infectious-disease-expert-faces-threats

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think more detail would be useful, yes. Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Infobox photo

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

USPHS

I have seen a couple of passing references to Dr Fauci having been a Commisioned Officer of the USPHS, which would not be unusual for an NIH physician, but haven't been able to locate a quality source to verify this. If this can be substantiatedm I think it's worthy of note. Anyone have a reference for this? Irish Melkite (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

First of all, because Newsweek hasn't been a "respected mainstream publication" since 2013. See Wikipedia: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)[reply]
This is a good piece that describes the situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Science is a good source [2]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Self Isolation

Dr. Fauci will be self isolating himself starting May 9, 2020 after being exposed to Covid patients in the White house

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Fauci&oldid=955838874"