Talk:Deborah Birx

Content problems
This article is being aggressively targeted by trolls motivated by hatred of accomplished women and/or by hatred of the White House. ChulaOne (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that there's a paucity of reliably sourced info on this obviously notable person.

The last deletions have been by an IP editor, without explanation. They weren't the first.

A prior editor likely is a relative, hence possible COI problems.

I think because of the legitimate notability of the subject and her vaulting into the spotlight this past week, the article should remain, but it sure needs work. It might need protection as well. Should it be tagged? Activist (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and made a request for protection, hopefully that should help. RexSueciae (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --2601:246:5800:9250:AD35:C34B:2428:8178 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Consider having article name be Deborah Birx instead.

COVID-19 Task Force
It appears that the inclusion of the information re: Dr. Birx's participation in COVID-19 control is controversial. Specifically, editors have been removing a paragraph which describes Dr. Birx presenting a flowchart while President Trump made statements that were later shown to be untruthful. Apart from the issue which arises from removing information which is reliably sourced (for what appear to be political reasons, not "fixing damage caused by trolls" or "fake news"), I must point out that the deletion of the article's final paragraph has the effect of breaking the reference ":0" which is used elsewhere in the article. Perhaps we can build consensus as to the wording of this article's text? RexSueciae (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * -- your thoughts? RexSueciae (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ChulaOne is indeffed, NOTHERE. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why people keep removing that information. It is verifiable .  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 16:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned by Rex above, the current version of the article and the version that ChulaOne keeps reverting to breaks the ":0: reference. Would it be possible for you to restore to a stable version to fix this? Also, in the RPP you said that you fully protected this page due to a lack of talk page discussion. However, it's not Rex's fault that ChulaOne hasn't responded. In fact Chula continued to revert without responding to Rex. So I feel like the full page protection has unintentionally rewarded disruptive editing.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 03:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have restored the reference, which predated the edit warring. The item about the chart was added by an IP on March 14. It was immediately removed by another IP, and then the edit warring between registered users commenced. The stable version was the one before the item was added.


 * I notice Rex said “please see talk page” in an edit summary at one point in the edit warring, but in fact there was no discussion here at that time, and there was none until after the page was locked. That’s what page locking is for: to make people stop edit warring and use the talk page. So now is the time for discussion about whether or not to include the “chart” item. For starters, those who want to include it need to find a Reliable Source citation for the material, which was inserted without any reference. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The article's references could use some improvement to clarify which references are being used for what information -- use the current Washington Post reference to describe Dr. Birx's appointment, and use others (such as those suggested by Bait30 above) for the presidential statements re: Google and COVID-19. I think that the press conference and aftermath is information notable enough to be documented. At this point, there seems to be consensus among users on the talk page; ChulaOne left an unsigned comment further up this page which reads "This article is being targeted by trolls motivated by hatred of accomplished women or by hatred of the White House." and has thus far made no attempt to engage in discussion except for the above baseless assertion (and others which they made in their edit summaries). Accusing other editors of being "trolls" who hate accomplished women feels like a violation of WP:PA, but that's another story. RexSueciae (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Now that full protection is expired, are we just supposed to wait indefinitely until ChulaOne responds to this discussion? We've been given two days to discuss the matter and have not heard from Chula other than to call us political trolls.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 03:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I just did. This should be closer to NPOV and so forth, with complete citations, and ought not to be controversial. If anyone else comes along deleting information wholesale, I say take them to arbitration -- at this point they're clearly not interested in discussion. RexSueciae (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I feel like we're going to much into whether or not the Google thing turned out to be true. I feel like both sides are given WP:UNDUE weight to the event. Instead, I feel like a good compromise would be to mention how her announcement led to some sort of miscommunication between Google and the White House. That way we avoid giving undue weight to the Jared Kushner poster and to the website itself.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 23:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You know, I figured something like that, which is why I quoted the one source (which mentioned how Kushner and Pence had personally weighed in on the poster's design) in the citation itself, but not in the main article text, and let the rest flow from there. I think the article text as it currently stands conveys the miscommunication more or less accurately, with one exception -- I do not think it correct to say that Google "later reversed course" about its website, given the text of the other sources and the fact that the "later" article is, in fact, dated to before the other sources. I've edited the article accordingly in a manner which should hopefully clarify the mixup between the local and national website ideas. RexSueciae (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

ChulaOne is indeffed NOTHERE. I have copyedited, cleaned up citations, and cited the uncited. I am unclear what else is being requested here. The article is clean, and I am not clear what the remaining problem is. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I seemed to have found the (old, contested) text in this edit. So, seriously, people want to address that controversy in this article because she held a chart while Trump made a statement that some people later disputed?  UNDUE. Does not belong here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure)  ~SS49~   {talk}  12:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Deborah L. Birx → Deborah Birx – This should be changed from "Deborah L. Birx" to "Deborah Birx" per WP:CONCISE. Another editor has made the argument that it shouldn't be moved due to the fact that reliable sources refer to her with the middle initial. However, I can find just as many reliable sources that refer to her without the initial compared to with the initial. Also, some of these "reliable sources" that were used to revert the page move are not WP:INDEPENDENT. That is why I believe that WP:CONCISE takes precedent over WP:MIDDLE  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 02:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I confess, I do not particularly care much about the title of the article (as compared to its content), though I would go with WP:MIDDLE for clarity's sake -- while WP:CONCISE is important, I'm not sure if the inclusion or omission of a single initial so dramatically affects the title's brevity as to implicate WP:CONCISE. Again, though, I must note that my preference is lukewarm, and I would like to hear what other editors suggest. RexSueciae (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly concerned over whether or not her middle name should be included personally, but I feel that with the government website providing her middle name and the off-chance that another notable person happens to have the same first and last names, leaving her middle name can get rid of that potential disambiguation. Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝)  05:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems kinda WP:CRYSTALBALL though. We might as well move Barack Obama to Barack H. Obama, Pau Gasol to Pau Gasol i Sáez, or Matt Damon to Matthew P. Damon, just in case. That’s why we’re supposed to use the most concise name as possible unless reliable sources use a less concise name. And like I said before, there isn’t really any consensus among reliable sources on whether to include the initial.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 15:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Other examples that omit middle initial: Joe Biden, Jonas Salk, Donald Trump, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth Taylor, Pete Buttigieg, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Al Gore, John Kerry. Mksword (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CONCISE. Birx is referred to both with and without her middle initial on her state.gov biography. WP:MIDDLE requires that the majority of reliable sources use the middle initial, and this has not been demonstrated. In addition to the examples provided by nom, refers to her without her middle initial. userdude 03:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support move to more concise name. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 17 March 2020
Requesting edit to the first reference on this page and change it to the following:

Recent attempts by certain editors to delete content from this page resulting in their deletion of the above, causing the reference which remained on the page to break. Perhaps the most elegant way to repair the broken tags would be to restore this page to revision 945943284 by User:Bait30. I have attempted to seek consensus on this issue and stepped back to avoid falling afoul of WP:3RR, but my attempts were ignored. I do think that the edit summaries demonstrate which version is closest to community consensus.

Regardless of the composition of the final paragraph, though, that first reference on the page is broken and probably ought to be fixed. Thank you. RexSueciae (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: A stable version with an unbroken reference would be preferred. Will the reviewing admin please see my comment above for further explanation of reasoning ?  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 03:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the reference. You all need to discuss whether to include the disputed material or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 March 2020
Change the lead sentence from:
 * Deborah Leah Birx (born April 4, 1956) is an American physician and diplomat who serves as the coronavirus (COVID-19) response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force. "
 * to:


 * Deborah Leah Birx (born April 4, 1956) is an American physician and diplomat who serves as the coronavirus (COVID-19) response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 16:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, align to the left   Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 17:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The reference issue has already been fixed. The alignment issue can wait until the full protection expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was actually just referring to the stray quotation mark at the end of the lead sentence. But I'm guessing that can just wait until full protection expires as well.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 20:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC).
 * Yes. Even administrators are reluctant to edit through full protection unless it is important. Restoring the reference was important. This can wait. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I understand. Thanks for being very responsive.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 20:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The image cannot be aligned to the left without breaching MOS and causing sandwiched text. More content would need to be added to balance the image (which I don't believe is helpful anyway). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

SYNTH
This series of edits introduced classic WP:SYNTH, WP:OR; the sources that claim to contradict Birx do not even mention here. I have rewritten and added it to the correct place in the article (we don't need to concoct a "controversy" where the sources have not), but the citations still need be formatted from bare URLs. reverted without discussion on an article that is under discretionary sanctions. could you please notify the editor. BrooklynBen, this article is under sanctions that I suggest you read; you might want to self-revert as you have introduced original research into a WP:BLP. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Plesse note, also that "Dr." is not used per MOS:DOCTOR, and that blind reverts are not good practice even for articles that are not under discretionary sanctions, and that are not WP:BLPs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

BrooklynBen, you need to discuss your changes here in a substantive way, and you need to observe WP:ONUS — especially the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Otherwise, you risk sanctions, including but not limited to a ban from this page or even the entire topic area. Thanks in advance for your close attention. El_C 15:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note.BrooklynBen (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Name misspelled
There are three references to Deborah "Brix" in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripleymj (talk • contribs) 00:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably me ... I will now and fix. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Corrected, and happy to report that was NOT text added for me; thanks for noting this. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Is a disambiguation page needed?
Is some type of disambiguation page needed for Birx and Deborah Birx? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article Birx points at the dab page, Birx (surname), which points back here, so I think it's covered.  What do you suggest? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmmm ... good question. I typed "Birx" in the Search Bar of Wikipedia.  I was expecting to be taken directly to the Deborah Birx article.  Instead, I was taken to some city in Germany that no one has ever heard of: the Birx article.  Shouldn't "Birx" bring us here?   That was basically my question.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Also ... the Wikipedia template / link that says For the surname, see Birx (surname) was not in the Birx article, when I first posted my question. It was added later.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the confusion, if that piece was added later. As far as I understand our naming policies, everything is in the right place.  We should not expect to type in a last name only and be taken to one person's article, as far as I know. It looks correct to me.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok. Sounds good.  Thanks!   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Query recent edits
, it is unclear what you are attempting to do. Your edits introduced some good changes, but along with those good changes, you removed some citations to what was a fully cited article, created short stubby paragraphs with WP:PROSELINE, switched the ref names to long convoluted names, converted prosified awards to a list (which is less desirable), and switched date formats on an article about an American subject (mdy) to international dates (dmy). I corrected some of those issues, and added citation needed tags in places where you added uncited info, and cleaned up the dreadful formatting in the Selected works list. But, with this edit, you removed all of those corrections. Could you explain? I see you are a very new editor, and putting up an entire draft, rewriting an article to your own style, is a strange way to start. If I could understand your aims, I might be able to help. But now we are back to uncited text, incorrect date format, and short stubby paras we you basically just wholesale reverted my selective corrections to your edits. Also, please review the discretionary sanctions on this article; you should never be wholesale reverting, and certainly not here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  09:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * -- Hope this finds you well. My goal here is to add content to this entry and to address some of the issues brought up on this talk page as to notability. I am trying to fix a few errors. I understand the concern regarding stubby paragraphs but while doing a major edit to the page, it is the format that is the most forgiving when trying to establish timeline and trajectory of the subject's career. And add citations that support these facts. I am using the Cite template which auto-populates in the dmy format, so I have kept it consistent with that for speed. I think one citation was removed because it wasn't clear if it was a notable source, and seemed to be repeating the same information found in official sources. I truly mean no harm in the editing done here. S T C Jones (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I took off the In Use tag. I am going to abandon editing. It isn't worth it. You are making changes even though the request in the tag is to give me some time to add content and add citations. If it's not clear that I am trying to improve the entry, and have done that, then I am not sure what to say to explain what seems pretty obvious. S T C Jones (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I made no edits after you put up the inuse tag; at each stage before that, I thought you were done editing and tried to correct the issues introduced. The idea of structuring the article to a timeline is problematic as it read like WP:PROSELINE.  I also saw little useful new content being added, while many errors being introduced.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Good source for critique of her work for Trump
Brianna Keilar calls out Dr. Birx's post-Trump reputation rehab tour on CNN. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Is "quack" a neutral point of view?
The first sentence currently includes "...an American physician and diplomat as well as a quack...". Is this an appropriate NPOV?

On one hand, many of her statements and orders as the Coronavirus Response Coordinator were untrue, misleading, evasive, or contradictory.

On the other hand, quack suggests an attempt to profit; there's no evidence for that by Birx. There's no evidence that these were her true professional opinions; to the contrary, it appears that she had no freedom to express such opinions under Trump. Nor did she spread discredited information in her prior (e.g. Obama's Global AIDS Coordinator) or later (e.g. George W. Bush Institute) roles. Thus, the term quack is not appropriate.

My suggested wording for the opening sentence uses the term discredited instead:

Deborah Leah Birx (born April 4, 1956) is an American physician and diplomat who served as the discredited White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under President Donald Trump from 2020 to 2021.

173.25.226.55 (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It was vandalism, and now it's gone.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Science magazine
Science magazine had a series of long articles, mostly critical, about Birx' management of the covid-19 data system. This has become particularly important, because, according to an editorial by cardiologist Eric Topol Science 375:245 and an article in the Washington Post ("White House frustrates grow over health chief Becerra's handling of pandemic"), even under Biden the U.S. still doesn't have a tracking system capable of providing basic information such as hospitalizations and deaths among the vaccinated.

https://www.science.org/content/article/federal-system-tracking-hospital-beds-and-covid-19-patients-provides-questionable-data

Federal system for tracking hospital beds and COVID-19 patients provides questionable data HHS Protect data, which influence how pandemic supplies and support are allocated, conflict with state or other federal data, Science has found BY CHARLES PILLER Science 29 NOV 2020

CDC had a long-running, if imperfect, hospital data tracking system in place when the pandemic started, but the Trump administration and White House Coronavirus Task Force Coordinator Deborah Birx angered many in the agency when they shifted much of the responsibility for COVID-19 hospital data in July to private contractors. TeleTracking Technologies Inc., a small Pittsburgh-based company, now collects most of the data, while Palantir, based in Denver, helps manage the database. At the time, hundreds of public health organizations and experts warned the change could gravely disrupt the government's ability to understand the pandemic and mount a response.

The feared data chaos now seems a reality, evident when recent HHS Protect figures are compared with public information from states or data documented by another hospital tracking system run by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR).....

https://www.science.org/content/article/inside-story-how-trumps-covid-19-coordinator-undermined-cdc

Illustration: Deborah Birx and Donald Trump destroy the base of a rocky structure, atop of which stands a group of scientists UNDERMINING CDC Deborah Birx, President Donald Trump's COVID-19 coordinator, helped shake the foundation of a premier public health agency. BY CHARLES PILLER Science 14 OCT 2020

On the morning of 13 July, more than 20 COVID-19 experts from across the U.S. government assembled in a conference room at the Department of Health and Human Services, steps from the Capitol. The group conferred on how best to gather key data on available beds and supplies of medicine and protective gear from thousands of hospitals. Around the table, masks concealed their expressions, but with COVID-19 cases surging out of control in some parts of the country, their grave mood was unmistakable, say two people who were in the room.

--Nbauman (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)