Talk:Mark R. Dybul

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

C'mon... Yes, we can... edit

I suspect the changes on this page highlight the intensity of reactions to Dr. Dybul. I think in situations like this it is important to stick to Wikipedia standards -- not that I can say I know them all that well myself -- and try to be as straight-shooting as possible in reverts/additions and edits.

For example, I think it was unfair to brand the last edits as 'vandalism' although they certainly did take out all of the heart of this article that made it interesting.

I'm not a big-time editor here, however, so I am going to leave the changes/reverts/edits to the folks that are. For the record, as I live in the UK and have nothing to do with gay politics or the Catholic church or world reproductive health policy. I did vote for Obama and was not unhappy to wave goodbye to the Bush administration. As it says on my user page, I'm straight but not narrow. I had never heard of Dr. Dybul until I read the Washington Post editorial about him. Intrigued, I looked at the Wikipage and noticed there wasn't anything about the dismissal.

The man's very mixed associations make him a complex and interesting person. I think it should be possible to convey that mixed bag of associations without bias... Without going on too much about it, including his association with Rick Warren would be interesting; as is the fact that he is a Democrat; that he follows the policies of the Catholic church; that some critics feel his only loyalty is to his own career/ PEPFAR; and even that Condoleeza Rice brought up his 'mother-in-law' in the swearing-in. This conveys an acceptance of the man's sexual orientation and his partner at a level that is astonishing to me for a Republican administration. It actually changes my view and understanding of the Bush administration's values. It is also helpful to know the specifics of the reproductive health criticisms -- without exaggeration of what Dybul did and did not do. In every case, the information that is added should be documented with sources, and those sources should be as unbiased as possible. I can't claim that the article I cited is up to snuff, but at least I labeled him as a conservative columnist, and it was from 'mainstream' media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celiakozlowski (talkcontribs) 12:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it's pretty sad that the Wikipedia entry on Dyson focuses on his recent removal, not on his career. The main bulk of the page is criticism of his removal from office, and most (seven) of the citations come from one article. There are no links to his biography http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bios/64719.htm or to interviews with Dyson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkw-154v5hg). But that might be because he only held a high ranking position from October 10, 2006 to early 2009, which is not a long time in terms of political figures. Claims of huge improvement in AIDS programs in two years might be an exaggeration. Twocs (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mark R. Dybul. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply