Talk:Alex Azar

HMS Holdings?

I can't find any evidence that he was or is on the Board of HMS Holdings, on their website, articles, or in his LinkedIn profile. Seems relevant given his new role as HHS Secretary, but I don't want to remove this. Would appreciate someone more experienced taking a look.

This Associated Press article says he served for two years on the board of HMS Holdings. Here's an HMS press release announcing that he joined the board. Marquardtika (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"He is a notable speaker on pandemic influenza preparedness.[33]" The citation does not support the factual assertion. Go to footnote 33 and search the page for influenza or pandemic and nothing comes up. Anyone mind if I delete this sentence?

Without realizing that you had suggested deleting the "notable speaker" I went ahead and deleted after searching the first 60 browser hits with his name, "speaker," and "pandemic influenza." Only two hits seemed to support that characterization, but it turned out both were repeats of his Wikipedia article. The only hits I got that show him speaking generally were one from 2006, when he was Assistant Secretary, and a few more as Secretary. They were all parts of his government jobs, rather than him being recruited to give talks. I also deleted the speakers' bureau material which is a primary and promotional source. I read his letter which was published in the Covey book on pp. XXV and XXVI, but it's nothing more than an endorsement of the Covey training program published in the program's own book. It doesn't remotely clear a notability bar. Activist (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Non-NPOV edit warrior SunCrow removed citations regarding Azar's latest H&HS nomination and confirmation from lede, complaining about their location. However, as a consequence the text was no longer present and/or supported anywhere in the article and I addressed his complaints in a manner in which I hoped he might find satisfactory. He also changed the descriptors in the lede to fluff the subject's credentials and obscure his long-time, prominent roles in, and allegiance to, the pharmaceutical industry. I wouldn't have been surprised if Azar was described as a "patriot," "handsome fella," one "who loves puppies." This sort of editing, with deceptive edit titles, is unfortunately typical for this editor. My efforts to respond to his complaints and to restore context and sources caused him to describe me as "hissy." He also simultaneously took the opportunity to make changes to the Susan Wagle article where he has engaged in similar warring in the past, which article he had previously scrambled and larded with bare urls while erasing critical, notable content. Wikipedia does not censor content for political reasons. This behavior should not be tolerated. Activist (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Bologna. SunCrow (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Point of correction: Activist, I did not describe you as "hissy". I used that word to refer to one of your talk page outbursts. Hissy is a noun, not an adjective. Per Merriam-Webster, it means "tantrum". Synonyms include "blowup, explosion, fireworks, fit, hissy fit, huff, [and] scene". See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hissy for more information. SunCrow (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow. Bologna is a city in Italy. Baloney is the process of misrepresenting edits in subject lines and replacing notable issues and citations in articles about those whose reputations a handful of editors spend so much time defending, them replacing notable content with filler, fluff and pap. Bologna, on the other hand, is a major Italian city which had zero cases of local coronavirus as of 12 days ago, took extreme measures to avoid operating venues of likely transmission, and provided free testing for any citizen who wished it. You've often been unable to distinguish between the two in the past. Perhaps if you tied a string around your finger to remind you of the difference? If there's anything else I can do to assist you in the process, please don't hesitate to ask. "Hissy." Activist (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

And a "hissy" is what happens on this talk page and others when someone attempts to make a Wikipedia article neutral and encyclopedic, thus frustrating the efforts of those who wish to load up articles with not-so-thinly veiled attacks on persons or groups who disagree with their politics. SunCrow (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Time to stop with the personal insults, SunCrow

In your just prior insult to me, you described me as "butthurt" because I objected to your whitewashing of articles. You had just engaged in some Wikistalking of me as well.

"Butthurt" is not in my vocabulary and I avoid using derogatory terms about other editors or subjects of articles, so I had to look it up. I found this:

Just think about it. The term implies less of “pain in the ass, I sat on something unpleasant” and something far more sexist and homophobic... Essentially, the term is used when someone is upset that someone else has gotten the better or them or beaten them or bested them in some way. That is to say, they dominated them. You know, like when someone is raped. This just isn’t funny. Not only is the term sexist, because it hinges on domination and anal rape, which is primarily a male device, but it is also homophobic. I’m pretty sure that gay men don’t think the threat of anal rape is hilarious, and I’m also pretty sure they don’t enjoy an act they enjoy once again being used as a display of cruelty, disgust, and derision.

The URL for this quote is by a feminist writer, http://persephonemagazine.com/2013/01/can-we-please-stop-using-the-term-butthurt/

I would suggest that you stop your offensive and ugly behavior, SunCrow. Start acting like the Christian you contend you are. Activist (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Activist, I have never heard of Persephone magazine. (Judging by the rather bizarre material you quoted from it, I wouldn't want to read it, either--except maybe if I wanted to make fun of it.) And the magazine's comments seem to me to be off the mark. The Macmillan Dictionary defines "butthurt" as follows: "Feeling hurt and offended without good reason". No mention of violence, let alone sexual violence. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines the term this way: "Offended and upset, especially in a way that is silly or unreasonable". Again, no connection to violent or predatory behavior.

You are mistaken about the word "butthurt", which I do not see as an ugly or offensive word. You are correct, however, that making fun of you is not a Christian thing for me to do. I apologize. SunCrow (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I was buying a couple of used tires from a backwater shop, a few years ago. The owner made, referring to occasional customers, a derogatory remark about "Jews." I said, "I'm Jewish," though I'm not. He apologized, though I presumed he did not think beforehand that he imagined anyone would have considered it offensive. I didn't tell him after his apology that I wasn't, but I'd bet he'll never make such a remark again, and hopefully won't about the ethnicity, sexual orientation, mental competence, etc. of anyone. I've made such a response to others in the past who presumed I shared their prejudices and I have always misidentified myself as a member of such a target group of their scorn for the above reason. I presume your apology is sincere and appreciate and accept it. Thank you. Activist (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus

I just worked on the material on the coronavirus outbreak. It strikes me as a bit scattered and haphazard. It could use some work by someone who knows the topic. SunCrow (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. I'm thoroughly familiar with it, but have time constraints. Activist (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Pharma lobbyist

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to retain "pharmaceutical". Some editors argued that it would be more appropriate slightly further down, but a strong majority felt it was appropriate for the first sentence. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the first line of the article note Azar is a "former pharmaceutical lobbyist" instead of a "former lobbyist"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. The fact that the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services is a former pharmaceutical industry lobbyist is pertinent information. It's far more descriptive than simply saying he was a lobbyist (without clarifying that it was for pharma companies). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Per User:Snooganssnoogans. ~ HAL333 22:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes — It's relevant, notable and is covered in the body of the article. News stories still highlight this fact: March 2020, February 2020, March 2020. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Notable and more descriptive than "former lobbyist". Some1 (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Per User:Snooganssnoogans; and it can be more appropriate for that. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Relevant and consequential. Fettlemap (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• NO - contrary to LEAD guidance. MOS:FIRST The first line should simply state the topic - in this case who he is. Past positions, especially any biasing portrayals should be avoided until after that, in DUE weight and some logical sequence. Note the predecessors articles. It’s like a declaration of article bias if one starts with oddball remarks. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. I disagree with Bassett. Activist (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes It provides more useful information. Idealigic (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• No but... it can be in the second sentence. Markbassett is correct, we shouldn't put all of that material in the first sentence. However, the list of former positions can be the next sentence. As for "former pharmaceutical lobbyist" vs "former lobbyist", unless they have lobbied on behalf of other industries I see nothing wrong with including the "pharmaceutical" adjective. Springee (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• No but... it should be in the second sentence, for reasons stated by Markbassett. Placing it in the opening sentence reads as intentionally questioning his impartiality. Pincrete (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Per User:Snooganssnoogans. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - For accuracy. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:03, 22 April 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.

False promises on vaccines

In my Dutch newspaper, there's an article on how he promised to release federal reserve vaccines, but it turns out there was no federal reserve and now states are angry. I'm reluctant to add it based on a Dutch newspaper (reputable though it may be) and don't have time to dig through other sources. Could someone pick this up? FWIW the link where i read it. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 08:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)