This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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 :
And so on.
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)
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)
The CDCP? -b ( talk) 21:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
An image used in this article,
File:Zombie CDCblog photo4.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Regardless your citation leads to the New York Post home page, no specific article. My point still stands.
02:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
The first sentence in the following content is being edit warred over:
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. [1] [2]
References
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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/?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/?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)
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)
{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/?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 /info/en/?search=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.
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)
I was surprised to see some information removed from the lead. According to WP:MOS re the lead:
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)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:CDC#Requested move 7 May 2022 that may be of interest to editors who watch this talk page. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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 :
And so on.
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)
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)
The CDCP? -b ( talk) 21:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
An image used in this article,
File:Zombie CDCblog photo4.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Regardless your citation leads to the New York Post home page, no specific article. My point still stands.
02:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
The first sentence in the following content is being edit warred over:
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. [1] [2]
References
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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/?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/?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)
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)
{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/?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 /info/en/?search=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.
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)
I was surprised to see some information removed from the lead. According to WP:MOS re the lead:
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)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:CDC#Requested move 7 May 2022 that may be of interest to editors who watch this talk page. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 05:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)