Talk:Anthony Fauci

Awards and honors addition

2026: Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters, commencement speaker, Macalester college

Sources:

https://www.macalester.edu/news/2026/04/dr-anthony-fauci-and-dr-christine-grady-to-deliver-keynote-address-for-2026-commencement/

https://www.macalester.edu/commencement/wp-content/uploads/sites/234/2026/05/SM-Remediated-Commencement-Program.pdf Emnib (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Emnib Done, thank you for bringing it up. ARoseThorn (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Rand Paul release of Anthony Fauci material

I will be working into this article some reference to the recent release by Senator Rand Paul of Anthony Fauci's own notes during to COVID crisis. This is a major news story and should be documented in some fashion on his Wikipedia page.

I have not yet decided on the exact content pending addition research and reflection. Suggestions Welcomed. Seki1949 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Tip: wait until you have sufficient independent reliable sources and then summarize what they consider to be important about it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree. Loverman4242 (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

See above: We should wait what independent reliable sources say, just as the rules demand. You are not a reliable source, so it does not matter whether you agree. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Why do you have to make that kind of comment? Seems to me Loverman4242 was agreeing with Schazjmd. I don't see him claiming to be a reliable source. YoPienso (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Why? Indentation. One colon: Agrees with Seki1949. Two colons: Agrees with Schazjmd. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

To sum what the above editors are saying you might want to check out WP:RECENTISM policy to make sure you don't prematurely make edits that are prone to changes because such is the nature ofWP:BREAKING news. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree to move forward but foregoing to posit a biased opinion. When making the recent point on the diary-etc., make a subtopic "Controversy" or something along that line. A few recent articles, and Wikipedia readers can make up their own minds. No one cares about my POV or any one else's. Bigeez (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

More on this . What a shame for US Congress and state attorneys. This does remind the infamous August 1948 Session of VASKhNIL... Such an analogy may seem far-fetched, but ... People will die , just as they died already during the pandemic. My very best wishes (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit request in June 2026 Gabbard documents sentence (Later career section)

A sentence was recently added about the documents released by Tulsi Gabbard. I moved this to the correct spot chronologically but have concerns about its wording:

"In June 2026, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, on her final day in office, released a series of documents that she falsely claimed showed that Fauci manipulated intelligence and lied to Congress."

My main concern is that the phrase "she falsely claimed" is stated in Wikipedia's own voice, which seems to go against WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:NPOV.

Would someone be able to review this sentence? Thank you. I'm hesitant to edit myself as this is a contentious topic and I'm not terribly experienced in this realm. abcasada (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Take a look at the sources for the statement, "Why the Covid-19 documents Gabbard released don’t prove her claims about Fauci" by CNN and "Tulsi Gabbard’s Fauci Files Don’t Prove What She Says They Prove" by Lawfare Media. It's NPOV to reflect what the sources reflect, which is that Gabbard's claims about Fauci are false. It would inject her POV to suggest otherwise. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Abcasada is correct, it doesn’t follow Wikipedia rules, we can’t say she lied because, first of all we can’t prove it since a lie means she intentionally got the information wrong, which none of the sources report, they say she “incorrectly stated” or “lacked enough evidence to prove her claims”. Which is what he article should put instead to follow NPOV.

IMO it should be changed to:

"In June 2026, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, on her final day in office, released a series of documents that she claimed showed that Fauci manipulated intelligence and lied to Congress."

This is a correct statement since it says that she makes a claim and proceeds to mention the claim. Juju376 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, she did claim that, but it was a lie/misinformation by Gabbard (not Fauci) as clearly explained in RS linked above. We must say what RS say. My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)