Talk:Anthony Fauci#rfctag

"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."Mike Gallagher, Time for Accountability on the Covid Lab-Leak Coverup, Wall Street Journal, 15 April 2025; [https://www.wsj.com/opinion/time-for-accountability-on-the-covid-lab-leak-coverup-fauci-gain-of-function-194730d4]

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)

{{reflist-talk}}

"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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_FULL_AND_UNCONDITIONAL_PARDON-Dr._Anthony_S._Fauci_%3Dpardon-warrant-2-19-jan-2025.pdf 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 [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/20/us/politics/biden-pardons-fauci-milley-cheney-jan-6.html 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)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749639670}}

{{rfc|hist|bio|pol|rfcid=0C2075A}}

Shall we summarize the pardon in the WP:LEAD?

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Fauci&diff=1289240663&oldid=1289192277 diff] and text:

On January 20, 2025, President Biden granted Fauci a Federal pardon.{{Cite news |last=Baker |first=Peter |date=2025-01-20 |title=Biden in Final Hours Pardons Cheney, Fauci and Milley to Thwart Reprisals |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/20/us/politics/biden-pardons-fauci-milley-cheney-jan-6.html |access-date=2025-01-20 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}{{Cite web |last=Liptak |first=Kevin |last2=Saenz |first2=Arlette |date=2025-01-20 |title=Biden issues preemptive pardons for Milley, Fauci and Jan. 6 committee members {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/20/politics/joe-biden-preemptive-pardons |access-date=2025-01-20 |website=CNN |language=en}}

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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 [https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/01/20/donald-trump-inauguration-day-news-updates-analysis/fauci-biden-pardon-00199293 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)
• 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)
• No because it does not make sense without a lot of explanation. And that is too long for the lede. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 • 🌽³³ 20:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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. [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-preemptively-pardons-anthony-fauci-mark-milley-jan/story?id=117878813] [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/biden-issues-preemptive-pardons-milley-fauci-jan-6-panel-members-polic-rcna188368] [https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5095299-fauci-says-he-will-accept-preemptive-pardon-from-biden/] 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)
• 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)
• No This is not as important as other things that are/could be mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• No - That will require more context. Nevertheless, it will still look undue. GenuineArt (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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, talk 12:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• {{summoned by bot}} No The topic is covered in a mere two sentences in the article body. Its inclusion in the lead, given that context, seems undue. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)
• The lead does cover "prominent controversies" with the sentence {{tq|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)
• :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)

:::No, our problem is only to follow WP:NPOV and WP:BLP guidelines. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::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)

::::It is a problem that you don't see a misleading lead as a NPOV issue or BLP violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

:::::::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)

::::::::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)

::::::::Bullshit is not swearing, it is a philosophical term. And "it's controversial" does not help to support a position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The event was notable enough for Biden to make a statement on it. We can just attribute his denial of a crime, [https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/01/20/donald-trump-inauguration-day-news-updates-analysis/fauci-biden-pardon-00199293 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)

::::::::::"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)

:::::{{tq|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)

{{Reflist-talk}}