Talk:Rick Bright

Article starts with a biased claim
Quote, "ousted from his role in retaliation", right in the opening paragraph. There's a Politico article today where the writer claims that he received a text on January 2 claiming that Bright “treats staff poorly. Goes around his boss. Tries to undercut his leadership. Hires outside contractors without permission", and that therefore there was talk about removing him. Doesn't seem like the clear-cut case of political retaliation that is being claimed here. Also, in the wikipedia article itself, it is stated that Bright was demoted on April 20, while he filed the whistleblower complaint on May 5. Who's retaliating here? 46.109.139.100 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misread the sentence, it states that he alleged he was removed in retaliation. 46.109.139.100 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Date of birth
I see that you added a birthdate - June 7, 1966. Could you explain where you got that date? You didn’t supply a source for it, and I don’t find it in the two sources appended to that sentence. And offhand I didn't find it in a Google search. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Melanie. Actually, I'm not surprised you had difficulty finding it. I had a heck of a time doing so. I read a dozen stories where I'd searched for it, often having to lift my ad blocks. I'd followed his education history from kindergarten through four other local elementary and a junior high school, before he went to Hutchison High where he graduated in 1984. He would have graduated just days before he turned 18 y/o. In the last decade he's become quite gray haired for his age. I found the correct date on a couple of sites and have posted a URL. I found half a dozen more sites that charge anywhere from $.95 to $14.95 (a monthly subscription rate), that listed his age as 53, without providing the birthday in lieu of receipt of payment. Many correctly listed his nickname, which is Rickie and by which he has been known since high school. I don't see any source that lists him as ever being married. I presume he signed up for a four-year hitch in the military, but I didn't pursue it to discover which branch. Since he's obviously extremely bright I expect he may have gone into the service because he couldn't afford to stay at KU. He worked after his discharge and returned to college going to Auburn likely while he was employed full-time and probably continued to work, perhaps until he completed his PhD. Expecting that his response to his removal from his post might be characterized as being partisan, and that his stance might have political motivation, I looked up to see if he had made any political contributions as "Rick Bright," "Rick A. Bright" and "Rick Arthur Bright," to determine if he had any political affiliations beyond voting. He made no federal contributions over $200 going back decades, nor to state candidates, parties, or for or against ballot amendments. Activist (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Activist, I'm going to remove the birthdate for lack of a Reliable Source. If we can cite one of those places that said he was 53 at the time, we can add an either-or birth year, otherwise back to unknown. (Those sound like commercial information-supplying sites which are not reliable in any case.) I left the military in the article because it was mentioned, rather vaguely, in the source; that seems to be the only place that ever mentioned military service, which is very odd for someone in public service like him. Regardless of what his friends and family call him, we will have to stay with Rick which is how he is known in all public reporting and documents. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that you have supplied a source. I don't know how reliable it is, but I'll accept it.-- MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would recommend not to trust edailybuzz.com as a reliable source since the site does not mentions either an editorial board and/or a management staff. Another editor posting on WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_February_29 commented that he/she would not consider edailybuzz.com as a reliable source. -- 96.64.134.61 (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of UNDUE material
I've removed the following material as UNDUE []. The subject of this article is Rick Bright. The paragraph in question is about Mike Bowen and his testimony delivered after Bright. This is an example of a wp:COATRACK. While Bowen's specific comment about Bright might be DUE, the part about government procurement costs as well as the material about Bright's opinion on the Trump administration's response to COVID-19. This is a BLP and not an article about the government response to COVID-19. Springee (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored the context, and can trim it, but this is an exploitation of "assume good faith." Springee has been essentially enforcing a one-man topic ban on me for months, by slashing through careful work, laboriously sourced that I've done on article after article, stalking me relentlessly as he whitewashes, trying to protect right wing politicians from particularly boneheaded things that they've done which have all been notable, and which they're proud of having done. He's using BRD as a cover. All the material he's scrubbed has been notable. This is an ongoing violation of the spirit of Wikipedia, IMHO. Activist (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , since you restored without addressing issues I think this is going to NPOVN. Springee (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Springee I guess so. I don't mind addressing issues at all, which I've just done amicably with MelanieN on this article. The problem is, you don't address issues at all. It's unfortunately "your way or the highway." Activist (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOCON the material should be left out until there is a consensus for inclusion. Currently there is not.  Please propose the new text rather than edit war. , would you please weigh in as well?  Springee (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see editing it down because you believed it was undue, I cant see why you removed everything though. That doesn't seem like it was warranted, nor does attempting to edit war the text off the page see warranted. At worst it was a poor good faith edit, its certainly not vandalism. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The majority of the added material was really off subject. The single sentence that was on topic was rather insignificant.  Either way, I've opened up a BLPN discussion.  Springee (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? The discussion seems to be perfectly fine here, isn't deadlocked or getting nasty, and you had an uninvolved third party (me) before you opened that discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I opened the discussion before getting a ping related to your edit here (not sure about the actual time stamps but those don't automatically update). I will admit I'm concerned about a pattern of similar edits Activist has added to a number of articles.  Typically articles with limited traffic.  Anyway, now we have a new paragraph, most of which is off topic and seems to be included not to discuss Bright, rather to say negative things about the Trump admin and the government's response to COVID-19.  That is certainly a worthy topic but that doesn't mean we shoehorn that sort of content into articles like this one.  If the connection is tangential to the article topic then it probably doesn't belong in the article.  However, perhaps I'm missing how this is actually critical information.  In that case, Activist is welcome to explain why it should be included.  Else, it should be out until consensus is clear for inclusion.  Springee (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with and felt of the content some seemed to be on subject and could be discussed on talk. I dont follow this article too closely, but it seemed a discussion should have been started prior to all this revert stuff. Looks like  is 3RR gaming, aggressively reverting and then backing off at the 3RR limit. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , which parts do you think are on topic. I've already said why I think the majority isn't.  Most of that paragraph isn't about Bright at all.  It's about a different person and their concerns.  Perhaps 1/3rd is related to Bright so why is the rest included?  As for claims of 3RR, remember, Activist was in the wrong for restoring the challenged content once it was challenged.  That's policy.  It should not be restored until a new consensus can be shown to support it.  Springee (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your position that the other editor was wrong and you were right is not even worth responding to you. You immediately reverted my 3RR notice on your talk page, I guess not the first time... As for the content, I tend to agree that maybe only the content that relates to Bright is relevant and DUE. Feel free to propose an edit here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I would leave the whole paragraph out. This is just a non-notable person expressing his opinion of Bright. Why? Why not eight paragraphs with various people praising and damning him? No thanks. Also, Activist, I don't think you should have readded it (or a trimmed version of it) while it had been challenged and was under discussion. Let the discussion go on, hopefully until consensus is reached. And Springee, why in the world did you report this to BLPN? Whose privacy rights are violated here, what unsourced negative information is being added? That was a pointless referral. And in your second edit here you threatened to report to NPOVN. I think you should cool it, not go rushing immediately to notice boards, but let talk page discussion play out as it seems to be calmly doing here. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Needs update resigns position at NIH citing Trump mandate to misinform public and withhold from public factual science based information.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/us/politics/whistle-blower-rick-bright.html How2disappearCompletely (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: mention of Bright's unsuccessful efforts to institute large-scale coronavirus testing regime as well as provide N-95 masks to members of the public (the former plan shot down his NIH superiors, and the latter by higher-ups at HHS). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)