Talk:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Archive 1

Untitled
One way of getting to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention page is through the redirect from CDC. That redirect is a big mistake. CDC also stands for other things, and it would be nice to have a list of links on CDC pointing to them all. How do we get back the CDC page for editing now that it redirects?

If you click on CDC, you'll notice that it redirects, but that on the redirected page it has a link to CDC on the top. Click on that. Or go to wiki.cgi?action=edit&id=CDC

(Thanks! Done it.)

CDC redirected here again. This is the primary use of the acronym and disambiguation occurs here per the disambiguation block format. --maveric149

There is some important items to fullfill :

Mac
 * Disease prevention (i.e. vaccine)
 * Health promotion
 * Health education ( divulgation)

Regionalize - U.S. Centers... + disambig

 * National Center for Disease Control Georgia
 * In english / In russian
 * Center for Disease Control Taiwan
 * In english
 * British Columbia Center for Disease Control
 * Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention
 * University of British Columbia Center for Disease Control
 * Buncombe County Health Center - Disease Control division
 * Citizen Development Corps

And so on.

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System is primarily a means of coordinating data collection with the individual states. It is, according to its website, the largest telephone survey system in the world. The BRFSS provides professional oversite of questionaire design methodology while the states indivudalize the survey to their needs (with BRFSS help) and carry out the actual surveys. Mattisse(talk) 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up
This page needs a major reformatting job. The entire "CDC Health Protection Goals" and "CDC Structure" sections are extremely difficult to read. The time line section should be expanded with a written history section. I already fixed some formatting issues, but the page still needs much more work. =D  Jumping cheese  Contact 00:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It needs more than that. The article from the first paragraph is a whopping POV commercial for CDC. Not everyone finds everything CDC says and does "credible". FAR from it. Note the frequency of the CDC (self) Promotion in the "documentation" notes.--Buckboard 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote this article?
The CDCP? -b (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seemly Biased and Funny Tone?
What's with the salesman type of tone? It feels biased, and doesn't seem very neutral. Someone needs to fix it. From what I see, it sounds like a television infomercial more than an encyclopedic article. EditingFrenzy (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite
This article needs a definite overhaul. For one, this is one of the first articles I've seen that isn't even in prose. For what is written, it's written like a brochure. And for a major orginization, it needs far more references. Someone get to work on it. Saget53 (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've taken a stab at fixing some of the most obvious problems in the article. Hopefully it will inspire some other people to jump in and make some incremental improvements (e.g. adding wikilinks, finding sources). WatchAndObserve (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Organizational Structure
I see someone has added a small section on the Coordinating Center restructuring of CDC. NIOSH has been kept out of that structure by Congressional mandate. How to address that? Pzavon (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some paragraphs explaining the controversy surrounding the proposed changes at CDC concerning NIOSH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigoliver (talk • contribs) 01:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Coordinating Centers
New Chief Orders CDC to Cut Management Layers Wervo (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The CDC tends not to fuck around, if i must say.

National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS)
Is there no article or article-section on Wikipedia about the CDC's National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS)? Am I missing something? Lightbreather (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Location
The location seems to be confusing people. Here's the deal, according to their website:

The physical location of the headquarters is 2900 Woodcock Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30341.

The mailing address is 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30333.

There's about seven miles between those two, and you cross the city limit as you travel. So it's "headquartered" outside of the city, even though it has an "in-city" mailing address. (For non-US folks, unincorporated areas always get the name of the nearest city in the mailing address, so that's not a reliable guide.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources for government data e.g. budget figures
Hi, so far as I can tell data published by the U.S. Government doesn't fit any of the explicit "reliable source" categories, and I suppose hauling out an agency's own fiscal reports and such is arguably a primary source, but I'm not sure how many places are going to be discussing e.g. the CDC's budget. So if I'm guessing or trusting a gut check, I'd say
 * simple arithmetic on the CDC's budget summary ("$6.6 billion, a decrease of $243 million from FY 2014 enacted" regarding the 2015 budget) is about as good as a source is going to get for putting $6.8B in as the CDC's 2014 budget

and even perhaps so obvious nobody ever thought to mention it directly but it's new territory for me and I haven't found anything addressing in any of the WP pages on sources, so I'm asking. Jthill (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Issues regarding Ebola Outbreak information
I have attempted to correct an addition that was recently made regarding the Ebola outbreak. There are two major issues with this update: the first being that the citation does not lead to the information that is being cited (it leads to the New York Post home page), the second is that the information being cited is an opinion piece by blogger Michelle Malkin, not a factual article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldd8892 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, new comments go to the bottom of the page.
 * Second of all you did not "correct an addition" -- you deleted it wholesale claiming the source -- the oldest newspaper extant in the U.S. -- is "not reliable"
 * Third, I explained as politely as I could that removing sourced text without a valid reason is not acceptable and that you should seek consensus with other editors on the talk page. Quis separabit?  01:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless your citation leads to the New York Post home page, no specific article. My point still stands.


 * RE: "Regardless your citation leads to the New York Post home page, no specific article" -- this has been fixed. Thanks for the heads up. Quis separabit?

02:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

OK
I admit, I edit like a dork. Many apologies for deleting what I took to be a hoax. I inserted the content back into the article...just in a different section. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.97.19 (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

2014 Dr. William Thompson admission of 2004 CDC overup of MMR/Autism correlation should be present.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/257581-house-republican-resurfaces-claims-of-cdc-vaccine-cover-up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.97.19 (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Many...
The first sentence in the following content is being edit warred over:
 * added the first time here by Sahrin on Aug 10: "Add explanation of why people oppose the amendment"
 * removed here by an IP Aug 26: "unreferenced, and has problems with WP:OR and WP:NPOV"
 * restored here by Sahrin Aug 27: "revert possible vandalism"
 * removed here by me Aug 27: "that is indeed unsourced editorializing that someone added to the article, and should be removed"
 * restored here by Sahrin Aug 30: "The source is given in the line. Gun zealots are taking over this page. Guys, what is it you hope to accomplish here?"
 * removed here by me Aug 30: "see discussion on talk and see your Talk page"

Many oppose the amendment, because it specifically bans the CDC from reporting results that suggest gun control would reduce violence, effectively censoring scientists from telling the truth. The U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee rejected an amendment, which would have provided $10 million in funding ear-marked for gun violence research.

I do not find the first sentence is supported by the sources. The "many" is especially unfortunate here. I invite those who do who find this supported, to explain how. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I would support something like "Advocates for gun control oppose the amendment. Also, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee in 2013 asking them "to support at least $10 million within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in FY 2014 along with sufficient new funding at the National Institutes of Health to support research into the causes and prevention of gun violence. Furthermore, we urge Members to oppose any efforts to reduce, eliminate, or condition CDC funding related to gun violence prevention research.""     That would be fully supported by the sources. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * restored again here by Sahrin with edit note: "Since the section is disputed, I am reverting to the original version of the article before the article was brigaded by revisionist gun types"
 * reverted again here by Del nk with edit note: "this is the consensus version".
 * User:Sahrin you need to come here and discuss. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit warring to repeatedly introduce the phrase "censoring scientists from telling the truth" is inappropriate as it is clearly non-WP:NPOV. I have no objection to adding in the notable opinion of the AMA, APA, and AAP.  Deli nk (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * added again here by Sahrin with edit note: "Attempting to intimidate another editor is extremely inappropriate" Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not participating in this content dispute, except to point out that the warred over addition is not even factually correct, let alone NPOV. The Dickey Amendment has been quoted in its entirety in the stable version of the article - it is precisely as short and vague as it sounds. To claim that this amendment "specifically bans the CDC from reporting results that suggest gun control would reduce violence" is false nearly to the point of vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't go to vandalism but it is definitely unverified. Do you have any thoughts on the compromise proposal above User:Someguy1221? Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I blocked Sahrin for edit warring, I'd rather not get too involved, even after the fact. Except to say that the proposal does appear NPOV, and that stating a subjective impact of the law in Wikipedia's voice is obviously not. I classified that statement as nearly vandalism instead of unverified since the text of the Dickey Amendment is not a matter for debate - anyone can look it up online and read what it says, though I suspect the author of that statement was simply uninformed or being figurative, rather than deliberately lying. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh! I didn't know that; sorry I would not have asked. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * note, i implemented the proposed language above here. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So Jytdog's and Someguy1221's harassment and witch hunt ended in a 24-hour ban. I'm back now, though, and am here to recommend we delete the section in question entirely. According to the text of the section as written, the "controversy" is a dispute over a $10M line item in the budget of an agency with a $7B budget. You guys continuously insist that there is no evidence for my contention (that the Dickey Amendment requires that researchers not report results that show gun control would reduce gun violence) - despite the fact that two separate news articles already included in the references for the current version of the text discuss this specific concern (that it will have a chilling effect on research). OK, so there is no chilling effect (or at least we can't write about it in the article). Then where's the controversy? As written, the article suggests that a dispute between different entities over a line item in the budget is a controversy. Are we really going to write a controversy stub for every single line item in the CDC budget? It's not noteworthy. I'm going to blank the section after a reasonable period of time without further comment. Sahrin (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to add, it really seems like this is an effort to 'whitewash' the issue. If there was no controvery about the Dickey Amendment restricting research, then it wouldn't be in the article in the first place. For whatever reason, Jytdog has brigaded this article with like-minded friend and appears to be trying to 'whitewash' the issue. An Admin *very* inappropriately weighed in on a content issue after responding to a disciplinary investigation (relevant because this lends authority to the idea that there is no controversy regarding the amendment that isn't evident from the facts). You guys can't have it both ways - you can't simply state the most beneficial form of the POV you are trying to advance and say that because you didn't consult the news articles you referenced before writing the section, there is no evidence to support a contoversy. You want it both ways. It's a logical non sequitur - either there is a controversy over censorship and it should be addressed in the section, or there is no controversy and the section shouldn't exist. We don't make sections that say "everything is OK." Sahrin (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to reply but with your second remark I am just going to AE.  You will get a notice soon.Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. Continued harassment doesn't change the integrity of the process, nor does it change the facts of this issue.  I'm not sure why you think threatening me is going to help settle an editorial dispute.  I'm not sure why intimidation is your solution to an editorial dispute.  It'd be great if instead of continually attempting to brigade the article in question and get people "on your side" you'd stick to following the editorial process.  Not a single comment on the content...just more threats and intimidation.  *sigh*  Sahrin (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wrote a reply to your first note asking how your description of the Dickey Amendment fits with what the Dickey Amendment actually says and what value your summary has in our article; the amendment is presented in its entirety -- it is one sentence - in our article just above where you were adding content. I was also asking you to show how the sources support the content you wanted.  However when I hit save, that edit conflicted with your second note.   If you want to discuss the content and sourcing I am happy to do that; nothing you wrote above shows any interest in discussion. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The content you were trying to add: (dif): "The amendment specifically bans the CDC from reporting results that suggest gun control would reduce violence."
 * What the amendment says in its entirety, “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (ref, p 244.
 * ? Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, it's not "my description" of the Dickey Amendment, it's a description (rendered in different language) that appeared in both of the citations that were already included in the section; testimony from experts interviewed for their respective articles (the PRI testimony was particularly compelling). To summarize:  the "controversy" is that the Dickey Amendment specifically bans researchers from reporting results that show that gun control would curtail violence.  This is not "loaded language" - the phrase "promotes or advocates for gun control" equals a ban on reporting certain results.  Even if that were not the case, we have the testimony from the PRI article from a researcher that this is how the amendment is perceived by researchers.  To suggest that somehow the entirety of the controversy is "AMA wants $10M in the budget for gun violence research, Congress rejects it" is, as I said in my original edit however many days ago *spurious.*  But your brigade/sock poppets/etc continue to insist that it isn't spurious.  OK, fine, I am willing to concede that point.  But if we're really saying that your version of events is true...then why the heck would we have it in the article in the first place?  There's an article for Dickey Amendment already, it doesn't need to appear in the CDC article under controversies because while arguably the $10M is indeed a controversy, it is so far below the scope of the article that it needn't be included in this fashion.  The "whitewashing" bit is exactly this - IMO you're trying to whitewash the actual controversy (the force and effect of the Dickey Amendment) by saying that because the exact words 'censorship' can't be proven until a case is decided by a judge we can't use the word or anything like it in the article.  I even proposed compromise language that dropped the aggressive parts you guys had the most problem with, but this too was completely and immediately rejected by you (and in fact was the edit that immediately proceeded your harassment action).  OK.  So I'm saying, let's compromise here to make a consensus - there is no controversy.  I grant, the Dickey Amendment doesn't censor.  A funding dispute isn't a controversy, though.  Sahrin (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you are persisting in interweaving personal attacks I am done here. I can't even sort out what you are proposing for content, with the accusations mixed in.   I was holding off filing the AE until I heard back from you.  I'll file that now. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there were no personal attacks in the comment. *shrug*  This is what I declined to participate in your brigade earlier, your apparent hostility and refusal to consider other viewpoints.  Please, submit an AE.  I wish I could promise to retaliate against you for it with a report of my own, but honestly that's not why I edit wikipedia.  I don't get off on reporting people I disagree with.  Again, *shrug*  Sahrin (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I did. First -  statements like "your brigade/sock poppets/etc" and "IMO you're trying to whitewash the actual controversy" are definitely personal attacks.  Writing those things has nothing to do with proposing content or sourcing.  Just stop doing that.
 * Look, The Dickey Amendment does not "specifically ban researchers from reporting results that show that gun control would curtail violence".   Very specifically, it says " none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may not be used to advocate or promote gun control.”  What both sources talk about, is that  researchers are afraid that if they publish their research, the resulting paper might be interpreted as advocating or promoting gun control ...and so they don't even do the research.    ~Maybe~ the content you want to add is something like:  "Since the Dickey Amendment was enacted, researchers who would like to study gun control do not study it, because they are afraid that when they publish their results and conclusions, they would be accused of violating the Dickey Amendment even if their intention was not to advocate or promote gun control".   Something like that is supported by the sources.   Is that what you are trying to say? Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 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/20111125052439/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US1324264&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US1324264&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/442.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00017924.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Reorganization and expansion
I have reorganized some sections with added content for expansion. I plan to add more concerning the organizational structure with national and global content. Otr500 (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Language guidelines
Are there any objections to including the reportedly banned words (vulnerable, entitlement, diversity, fetus, transgender, evidence-based, science-based)? I can see they were listed at one point but got removed without explanation. I personally see no other reason for removing them than to drive traffic to the website we use to source the section. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Out of the entire history of the CDC and everything they are responsible for, is this really noteworthy for an article on an overview of the CDC? Natureium (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily object to removing the entire section as undue. So long as we retain it, the words should be listed within it though; right now, it clearly leaves the reader wanting. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the specific 7 words as I don't see the point of making the section longer than it absolutely has to be; as Yuval Levin showed in the link I added the WashPo story was a misunderstanding. The entire section is borderline undue, but it's useful to have a correction on the wiki page. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

From CDC to CDC and Prevention
Hi Some readers may be wondering why we use the acronym CDC instead of CDCP as the word "Prevention" is officially part of the name of this institution since October 1993. Therefore, I suggest that someone adds a short sentence of explanation in the lead section and a paragraph in the timeline in the History section. LoveAtFirstWrite (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article already addresses this with the last sentence in the paragraph "It became the National Communicable Disease Center (NCDC) effective July 1, 1967. The organization was renamed the Center for Disease Control (CDC) on June 24, 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control effective October 14, 1980. An act of the United States Congress appended the words "and Prevention" to the name effective October 27, 1992. However, Congress directed that the initialism CDC be retained because of its name recognition." The retention of "CDC" certainly doesn't merit its own paragraph, and I don't really think it's of such great importance as to belong in the lede. — tooki (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info. I did not pay attention to the paragraph you are referring to indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveAtFirstWrite (talk • contribs) 08:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

== WP curators: please consider reversing a designation on 2020 Oct 9 of “vandalism”, and restoring an important brand-new section which had been immediately deleted at the same time, from this article re the CDC; thank you. == This is a request for one or more Wikipedia curators together to look into, then please reverse, the false designations today of "vandalism" and "ranting", re one brand-new sub-section, and hopefully also to reverse its removal (which was done without any further explanation except “erratic editing” -- also false anyway); that new sub-section being actually very carefully written, and comprising a few regular paragraphs of concise facts, fairly well referenced (with yet more references pending); it is re the very important ongoing lead poisoning of NYC citizens, at levels many times over the EPA limit, caused by the city's lead water pipes, throughout 1848 to 1992 (and, in a few districts, even afterward); re which poisoning, from the CDC's inception in 1946 onward, the CDC colluded in public figures' ignoring or even denial of the accumulating evidence of its epidemic-level harm.

-- Thank you.

--

Following are two excerpts, each from a relevant WP meta-page, re this unwarranted removal plus the false accusations:

---

[1:]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CDC&action=history ::

curprev 21:05, 9 October 2020‎ Zefr talk contribs‎ 66,408 bytes +13,622‎  Reverted to revision 982564949 by 2601:45:4001:64A0:3004:7D1A:3022:28CD (talk): Rant, erratic editing undo Tags: Undo Twinkle -

[2:]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2605:6000:1516:4565:154D:C13E:9CF1:1064&diff=cur ::

You have a new message (last change). Jump to navigation Jump to search Latest revision as of 21:08, 9 October 2020 (edit) Zefr (talk | contribs) (Only warning: Vandalism.) Tag: Twinkle (No difference)

Latest revision as of 21:08, 9 October 2020 October 2020[edit] This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ... and for disruptive editing. Zefr (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

--- [Thank you all, once again.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1516:4565:154D:C13E:9CF1:1064 (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Response
Actually, we don't have "curators", just editors, like you, who have to try to collaborate. Your edits are problematic to reconcile, e.g. this one that you said made minor changes, but removed over 18 kilobytes of content. And the stuff you added about CDC coverups might be interesting, but only if it comes in with solid sources. You can't just put it in and ask others to try to find sources for it. If you respond here with info about where you are getting your info, we can help to see if the sources are reliable, and cite them if so. Otherwise, your edits may be just characterized as "rants" or "vandalism" and dismissed. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Requestor's reply in turn (made on '20 Oct. 14)
{First & last: Gratitude to all involved here; and especially a “Thanks” to the editor “Dicklyon” for the kind response just above, to my two-part request just above it.}

(BTW, I’ll try to find out whether this sort of talk should actually be done elsewhere, or whether here is appropriate.)

- - - - - - - - -

Again, my two requests are [a:] for the designation “vandalism”, re my contributions, to be reversed; and [b:] for the removal to be restored, of “my” contribution to the article re the CDC (into the section re its controversies);  that contribution being actually another WP editor’s five-paragraph version re the 144+ years of egregious lead poisoning in NYC from its water pipes.

- - - -

Meanwhile: if needed, more details, in order to clear this up a bit more; especially in order for the designation “vandalism” to be reversed:

Actually, the seven paragraphs I contributed were only a slight expansion of the version that had already been kindly ‘streamlined’ down by another WP editor, “Branjsmith94”, reducing down to five paragraphs my own original version of a dozen-or-so paragraphs (the latter being much more fact-filled, tho by-then still only slightly more-referenced). (“Branjsmith94”’s streamlining of it can currently be seen where I’d first submitted it, within the article re controversies re the New York Times; see its Edit History, Sep 22-24 & 29).

Then, for the sake of this CDC article, I’d basically taken that streamlined version, spruced it up a bit, especially to expand here and there upon the references re its relevance to the CDC (& compress its relevance to the NYT); and then submitted it, now as seven paragraphs (tho still admittedly w/ only the seven references that “Branjsmith94” had retained) in this CDC article (into  the section re its controversies).

And then, before temporarily leaving the submission as it was, intending to come back and improve it (especially its referencing) ASAP: (As seen in the view of my latest editing of that section, via the “Difference between revisions” page-version that “Dicklyon” kindly referenced [above],) my last changes were indeed slight, rather than “major”: +-20 changes, each being just one to three words or a punctuation mark, except two phrases of several words each: one being several words added to make that paragraph’s ending point more toward the main mass-crime;  and another, to improve the referencing to another WP article re the same tragedy throughout D.C.

(Again, I’d made the major change of adding that whole seven-paragraph section [apparently as that +-18 KB addition] before, not after, finally coming back and making just those slight changes.)

One factor of note here is that, re that version I submitted re the NYT which therein had been kindly streamlined by the other editor “Branjsmith94” on Sep 29, and since then has been residing without further issue (actually, within the main NYT article’s linked sub-article re the NYT’s controversies): in that streamlining, “Branjsmith94” had reduced the number of references slightly, down to just seven, for those five paragraphs. In short, such an admittedly rather-sparse degree of referencing is actually the work of another editor, and has so-far been accepted without any issues noted.

Also, my meta-request, within my “Edit summary” (mainly re my adding that main seven-paragraph submission), in which I called for more “basics” [facts] (especially for more dates), it was clear that it was actually re the previous small section just above the one I was submitting; i.e., it was not re my own material. (Thanks again to “Dicklyon” for referencing the “Difference between revisions” page which shows that call of mine:   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention&diff=982708525&oldid=982703622 )

(And, this being basically re my very first & second WP submissions, only time will prove that I’m the sort to keep coming back and contributing ever more and better references and clarifications, as I learn to do so ever better; i.e., that I’m the utter opposite of some “vandal”.  So, again, I humbly request that you WP administrators please reverse that latter designation. )

- - - - - - - -

FWIW, BTW: Re that parenthetical repeat-of-request just above, it seems it might help to mention, for some of us newer here (tho I might well be the newest), that actually it seems possible that only some categories of WP editors are able to reverse such designations as that of “vandalism”;  and that, certainly, only some of them can restore some deleted sections:

As shown at the top of the WP page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Viewing_and_restoring_deleted_pages : [the excerpt here in text-only format] :

- - - - -

Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search For uncontroversial cases, please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. For other cases, see Deletion review This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, but rather intends to describe some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting. Shortcut WP:Restore Only administrators, checkusers, and oversighters can view the content of deleted pages. This is considered necessary because deleted pages may contain copyright violations, personal information, libel, and so forth, and making such material publicly available could be problematic. Administrators can also restore deleted pages if necessary; oversighters and checkusers who are not administrators cannot do this.

[End of excerpt]

- - - - -

(Actually, tho, I still have yet to find out whether it’s only these three more-curative categories of editors who might be able to reverse the inappropriate designation here of “vandalism”, which again is my first request [above]).

- - - - - - - - - - -

Anyway: In the long run, of course, it’s far more important, for everyone’s benefit, for the second request of the two [above] to be somehow furthered; so that such clear glimpses as in such submissions as this seven-paragraph one at-issue here, glimpses actually so painstakingly assembled mainly by the likes of the scholarly quietly-whistle-blowing authors Troesken and Tiemann (the main references of that submission), can finally be shown, via WP, to others:

clear glimpses of large professional org.s paying off public figures in many large cities, to keep them quiet about those org.s’ for-profit poisoning of the whole populace, often over several generations.

Indeed: what effect of all WP builders’ and editors’ work, put together, upon present and future generations, could be much more important?

RSVP, anyone; Thanks!

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

{Gratitude, again, to all involved here, helping together to get the most important knowledge available as clearly as possible to everyone, for all our benefit.} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:1540:712:CC7D:C160:DC41:3673 (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S.: As of '21 Jan. 07, this appeal hasn't even been addressed here, let alone properly & quickly resolved, by any WP administrator.

Insufficient discussion of Anti-Mask Flip-Flopping in Controversy section
Are we going to pretend that didn't CDC flip-flopped on masks after 2 months of anti-mask recommendations? Not even a single sentence. I'm amazed there is a dozen sentences on testing failure, but only a single sentence on masks, not even mentioning it's flip-flop at all.Rwat128 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead section
I was surprised to see some information removed from the lead. According to WP:MOS re the lead:


 * The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. (emphasis added)

As was reported in numerous news sources for a prolonged period of time, the information released by the CDC was extensively edited to reflect the Trump administration's version rather than an accurate report. I really cannot fathom why an editor would suggest that this should not be mentioned in the lead. We are not talking about a few minor changes here. In fact, consider for example, the CDC pushing a medication just because Trump said so, not because research showed it to be safe and effective. That's dangerous. And of course, as a result of the manipulation thousands of people lost trust in the CDC which has affected the acceptance of the vaccine. Actually what I had put into the lead so far was the absolute minimum. Mention of the Tuskegee incident most certainly belongs there since almost everyone is aware of that scandal. Gandydancer (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:CDC
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:CDC that may be of interest to editors who watch this talk page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)