Jump to content

Talk:Robert Gallo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Initial message

Some of what is said here is very weak. retroviruses have been isolated from humans for a decade or two before the 1980's. Robert Gallo is the first to claim a disease from them. I think he did that before 1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcasper (talk • contribs) 00:41, 28 February 2003 (UTC)

Gallo wrote a book titled Virus Hunting

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q6VS41wJv1UC&dq=gallo+virus+hunting&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=Kp3kFDxUZP&sig=puLI-90i4aWTts24jnh51XGwm9o

http://www.amazon.com/Virus-Hunting-Retrovirus-Scientific-Discovery/dp/0465098150

Published in March 1991 ISBN-10: 0465098061 ISBN-13: 978-0465098064

This book is an autobiography, covering Gallo's childhood, and explaining how the death of his sister from Leukemia influenced his later career. It has much detail of the period of time leading up to the discovery of HIV-1 as the cause of AIDS. It also has a lot of detail about the collaborations, and later controversy between his group in the USA and Montagnier's group in France.

user:Nocontroversytalk 21:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Discovery controversy

Since we already have an in-text section on the controversy over Gallo's role in the discovery of AIDS, we should probably edit or expand that section using new reliable sources rather than add them as "See also's" or external links. Crewdson's reporting is clearly useful as a source - his book was reviewed in a number of major popular and scientific media, including the New England Journal of Medicine. I don't see Lang's view being as notable here. MastCell Talk 22:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What does MastCell's comment, "[...I] don't see Lang's view being as notable here" mean? RspnsblMntalk 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - there was an edit which inserted Serge Lang's commentary on the discovery of AIDS. I meant that I don't think this is a sufficiently notable source to warrant inclusion in the context it was given. MastCell Talk 20:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. Lang's, "The Gallo Case" (Challenges, pp. 361-600) is not a, "[...C]ommentary on the discovery of AIDS." It is an analysis of the numerous investigations by governments (US & French), journalists (lay & scientific), and scientists (including Lang) of Gallo's Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology at NCI, NIH. These investigations primarily concerned the provenance of Gallo's HIV clone, "HTLV/IIIB." As usual, Lang focuses on the failures of responsibilities on everyone's part.
  2. Why, "[...D]on't [you] think this is a sufficiently notable source ... ?" RspnsblMntalk 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. What does, "[...C]learly useful as a source..." mean? "Useful" to whom? In what way? Under what circumstances? How can anyone prescribe what sources are "useful" - let alone "clearly useful" - w/out qualification - implying universal agreement? Under what authority can such be prescribed? Crewdson's Science Fictions may be "clearly useful" to MastCell but may not be "clearly useful" to someone else. For instance, its review in Science was harshly critical. The reviewer "clearly" didn't find it, "useful." For another instance, the 2nd review for the New York Times stated its "evidence" was on a website, not in the book. The reviewer ignored or missed 79 pp. of detailed, single-spaced, and small-print endnotes. Many endnotes reproduce experimental results recorded in notebooks from Gallo's Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology (LTCB). So, this reviewer also could not have have found it, "useful."
  4. Is Science Fictions, "clearly useful as a source" because it, "was reviewed in a number of major popular and scientific media, including the, New England Journal of Medicine?" As I've documented in #3, above, whether a book has been reviewed does not imply "useful[ness]." Moreover, neither the number of reviews nor the extent of the cross-section of these reviews' fora (lay, scientific, lay scientific, etc.) indicates "useful[ness]." Indeed, they may indicate or reveal only popularity of subject and/or author. (Perhaps what MastCell means by, "notable," is "popular?") Furthermore, neither is a validation of a work. A review is a critique. Maybe MastCell has confused publication of book reviews with publication of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts. If so, then MastCell should know Nature, NEJM, Science, and many other scientific journals have published fraudulent works - despite peer-review vetting. Indeed, one of John Darsee's papers published by NEJM - as a lead article - claimed a male had fathered 2 children when 8 or 9 years-old [1]. So, no works are proved legitimate, valid, or "useful" by reviews, number of reviews, or extent of the cross-section of these reviews' fora. What is "useful" must necessarily be determined by an individual for her/himself.
  5. "[...R]eliable sources." No one is without bias. There is no such thing as an objective point of view. Crewdson has conflicts of interest (CsOI), at least: making a buck & proving his 19 November 1989 Chicago Tribune "Geat AIDS quest" 55,000 word exposé valid. Lang may have CsOI: questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis & mistrust of the establishment; But, "The Gallo Case" (Challenges, pp. 361-600) does not debate or question the the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. Also, Lang declined royalties for Challanges (see pg. iv). What matters is whether claims are documented and whether the documentation is verifiable. The claims of Science Fictions are based on verifiable documents. Lang's "The Gallo Case" is an analysis of verifiable documents and news reports. There is nothing to refute. The leaked staff report of a 5-year Congressional subcommittee (Chaired by John Dingell) investigation that is critical of Gallo, among other persons, is worth referencing. That there was a Congressional investigation is not even acknowledged in the article. The report is self-contained and based on verifiable documentation. And the investigation was bipartisan. I am not aware Congressman Dingell's subcommittee had a COI in this matter. But neither the staff report nor Lang's "The Gallo Case" can be dismissed for the reason MastCell initially dismissed both: "AIDS-denialist propaganda." Maybe MastCell can document the claim and revert the purging of the article's changes history.
  6. Does MastCell have a COI? Has MastCell read, "The Gallo Case" (as MastCell has claimed) or the Dingell staff report? Maybe and I doubt it (both works), respectively. If MastCell were familiar with the available documentation, the state of the article would not be so pitiful. For instance, there is no mention that the US government later (11 July 1994) admitted Gallo's LTCB had used a gift French virus to develop the US HIV blood test - in contravention of a material transfer agreement - and reallocated the tests' patent royalties in favor of the Institut Pasteur. There is also no mention that the admission & reallocation only came because France threatened to sue (again) in light of information the US Government investigations were revealing. Also, if MastCell were familiar with the available documentation, MastCell wouldn't dismiss changes critical of Gallo stating, "Actually, his role is not so controversial anymore,..." (12 Jun '07) vis-a-vis Gallo's "role in identifying the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) as the infectious agent responsible for the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)..." The question of whether Gallo's LTCB used the French virus accidently or deliberately remains open. Maybe MastCell only knows - and accepts uncritically - what MastCell has allowed to be placed in the article. Maybe MastCell is biased. The current External Links, except for Crewdson's Science Fictions website, is a list of propaganda. The only one not controlled or written by Gallo was written by Dr. Bernadine Healy. Dr. Healy's account is grossly misleading. Eg., "Gallo had always acknowledged the Pasteur virus as the same or similar to his own." And there's a reason for it: Healy is protecting herself and Gallo. Crewdson, Lang, and Dingell's subcommittee documented Healy's obstructions of investigations and overt protection of Gallo. [Correction: Pruisner's also was not authored by Gallo. RspnsblMntalk 17:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)]
  7. Why doesn't MastCell work on the article instead of dismissing contributions for invalid reasons and/or Wikipedia technicalities? Dr. Gallo and his role in AIDS research have been, are, and will always be quite controversial. Eg., how could Gallo have been unaware two of his high-ranking LTCB associates were embezzling federal funds? Egg., Gallo withheld the true source of HT cell lines, slowing research progress. The article has to evolve. If Crewdson's book can't be cited in the second sentence, why didn't MastCell move it somewhere else?
  8. There are only a few comprehensive analyses of Gallo's LTCB AIDS research readily available: Crewdson's "The Great AIDS Quest" (1989), Dingell's subcommitte's staff report (late 1994), Lang's "The Gallo Case" (1998), and Crewdson's Science Fictions (2002). Since there are only a few and their "notab[i]l[ity]"/popularity irrelevant, their "useful[ness]" a matter to be determined by the reader, their claims well-documented, and their informativeness great, why not acknowledge these in a list (w/ links) so WP contributors can: know of them, learn from them, and use them - along with the currently listed propaganda - to develop a respectable Robert Charles Gallo, MD Wikipedia article?
  9. Other analyses are not readily available. Eg., OSI draft report (spring 1991), OSI final report (18 Mar 1992), and ORI report (29 Dec 1992). The last two are available from ORI via FOIA. But all 3 are discussed in Lang's and Crewdson's works. RspnsblMntalk 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. Since you're a new user - or at least using a new account - let me suggest that talk-page discussion works best if you focus concisely on the content issues at hand and avoid lengthy speculation about the failings and shortcomings of your fellow editors. Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links and information, books which are listed as "further reading" or used as references should have clear notability and prominence. Crewdson's book does - it's been reviewed by a number of major media outlets, critically or not. Lang's book apparently doesn't sell very well (e.g. Amazon rank 1,342,164) and has not been reviewed in any major outlets that I can find. Furthermore, Lang's idiosyncratic views on HIV make this a less credible source.
Your goal appears to be to add material critical of Gallo to this article. Gallo and the discovery controversy have been widely covered in the medical literature (e.g. PMID 11646949, PMID 11656059, PMID 2046740, PMID 11859161, PMID 2181663, PMID 2404208, ad nauseum). In the popular press, both Impure Science by Steven Epstein and And the Band Played On present less-than-flattering pictures of Gallo, and both books are far more prominent, have been reviewed by major media including the New York Times, etc. All of these would make more appropriate sources and "further reading" than Lang's book on these bases.
More fundamentally, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Wikipedia's definition of this term might be useful to review. Mentioning John Darsee as a reason why Nature, Science, etc should be shelved in favor of a book by Serge Lang is not going to be an effective tack. MastCell Talk 21:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The disconnection between RspnsblMn's points (1-9) and MastCell's response is nearly total. Furthermore, MastCell makes numerous errors, misstates what RspnsblMn wrote, and misstates WP policy.
A. Re, "[...S]ince you're a new user - or at least using a new account - let me suggest that talk-page discussion works best if you...": I hope MastCell would provide such advice - when appropriate - regardless of whether the account and/or user is "new." In this instance, however, the advice is inappropriate; indeed, it is disconnected from my points. All my points address, "content issues." They document serious shortcomings in the article and they make recommendations for improving the article. Since edits affect content, my objections both to certain of MastCell's edits and to the reasons MastCell provides for them are - by definition - "content issues" as well. Furthermore, so also is my questioning of both MastCell's bias and knowledge of Gallo - in light of MastCell's edits and reasons and the state of the article. Moreover and therefore, my points don't include, "lengthy speculation about..." anything. I asked specific questions that arose from my analysis of the article, MastCell's edits, and MastCell's justifications for them - all "content issues." (BTW, these are questions of scholarship and are not, ad hominem: MastCell's WP:NPA link is unwarranted.) MastCell raised, "the content issues at hand" - not RspnsblMn. MastCell initially rejected the Congressional subcommittee staff report and Lang's "The Gallo Case" as, "AIDS-denialist propaganda" - not me. When MastCell later provided different reasons for the rejections, I challenged those as well. Why does MastCell, "avoid," "the content issues" MastCell raised?
B. Re, "[...S]ince Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links and information, books [that] are listed as 'further reading' or used as references should have clear notability and prominence...": Incorrect. An article's subject/topic must be notable. Books and other reference types used w/in an article must be reliable sources. Since there are few scholarly analyses of the numerous investigations of Gallo/LTCB, listing each is not indiscriminate and would not produce an excessively long list. On the contrary, not including them would be unscholarly. Anyway, how does one determine, "clear notability and prominence?" You're not getting it. My points 3 & 4 debunk using popularity, notability, and extents of reviews as criteria for determining a work's merits and demerits, including its, "useful[ness]." [Crxn: +brckts]
C. Re, "[...L]ang's idiosyncratic views on HIV make this a less credible source...": Incorrect. Please demonstrate how and/or explain why MastCell thinks so. Doing so would require MastCell's explicating Lang's "idiosyncratic views." Upon becoming educated to do so, MastCell would learn Lang denied neither AIDS nor the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. (MastCell's including the AIDS denialism WP link is therefore illegitimate.) Also, see my point 5. Furthermore, I am referencing not Lang's book (Challenges), but its largest section, "The Gallo Case." Challenges is a collection of Lang's files; not every file is related to HIV-AIDS. For instances, the "Huntington Case" relates to political science and history scholarship, the "Baltimore Case" relates to a whistle-blower and accountabilty in publicly funded immunology research, the "Shafaravich Case" relates to anti-semitism of a "notable" Russian mathematician, and the "Ladd-Lipset Case" relates to survey research of sociologists. I repeat, "The Gallo Case" does not address the HIV-AIDS hypothesis.
D. Re, "[...Y]our goal appears to be to add material critical of Gallo...": Read my points 6-9. My goal is to improve the article. Please, "avoid ... speculation about" and characterization of RspnsblMn's motives/"goal[s]."
E. Re, "[...G]allo and the discovery controversy have been widely covered in the medical literature...": Since RspnsblMn is quite familiar with the available documentation, MastCell's point is superfluous. Of course RspnsblMn has read the works RspnsblMn cites. If MastCell had read them, MastCell would know RspnsblMn doesn't need education on this point. Furthermore, although MastCell's specific citations are indexed by PubMed, none is medical literature. One is lay press (New York Times), one is lay scientific news press (New Scientist), and four are scientific news press (Nature (2) & Science (2)). MastCell's "e.g." is therefore invalid. Nevertheless and more important, why hasn't MastCell used the first and last references to document ORI and Congressional investigations of Gallo and his LTCB? Neither fact is in the article.
F. Re, "[...I]n the popular press ... these would make more appropriate sources and 'further reading' than Lang's book...": 1. Whether a specific work, "present[s] less-than-flattering pictures of Gallo" is relevant only in the context of a survey of many works' "pictures" of Gallo. I would support inclusion in the article of such a survey by MastCell but only if the "pictures" are both documented and of professional responsibilities (e.g., leadership, scientific, medical, NCI, NIH). "Pictures" in other contexts (personal appearance, appetites, for instances) are too trivial and may be, ad hominem. If the facts ("pictures") of Gallo's research practices are "less-than-flattering" to Gallo, so be it. 2. As I've explained "ad nause[a]m," considerations of works' "prominence" and extents of review when choosing sources are nonsense. 3. The two books you cite do not compare to Lang's piece (not "book"), "The Gallo Case." Lang examines the history & development of the discovery scandal by systematically analyzing the available investigative documentation that was produced by journalists, governments, and scientists. Lang thoroughly documents the twists and turns of these investigations and emphasizes responsibilities doing so. Lang even documents his role in helping expose investigators' failures while the scandal was unfolding. Science Fictions also discusses Lang's role. Neither of the two books you cite has the same focus as Lang's. [Correction: + "'s" & "as Lang's" RspnsblMntalk 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)]
G. Re, "[...M]ore fundamentally, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources...": See my point, "5. '[...R]eliable sources.'" Would MastCell explain how RspnsblMn's position, "[...W]hat matters is whether claims are documented and whether the documentation is verifiable..." is incompatible with WP policy? See, for instance, WP:Verifiability.
H. Re, "[...M]entioning John Darsee as a reason why Nature, Science, etc[.] should be shelved in favor of a book by Serge Lang...": Another misstatement of RspnsblMn's points. I mentioned John Darsee as an example to show that merely passing peer-review, even at a prestigious medical journal - and one MastCell had cited, does not necessarily imply a work is infallible or valid. I did so in case MastCell had, "confused publication of book reviews with publication of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts..." MastCell should read RspnsblMn's point 4 again. My point 3 showed directly that where a book review is published implies nothing about the work's merits. (A journal's publishing obviously-flawed research works with peer-review doesn't inspire confidence in that journal's choices of book or book reviewer, or the review itself - especially since neither the choices nor the review is peer-reviewed.) RspnsblMn didn't raise the issue of reviews - MastCell did. Moreover, RspnsblMn is not against citing, "Nature, Science, etc[.]." Indeed, RspnsblMn suggests it at point E. RspnsblMn is not proposing "shelv[ing]" anything - "in favor" of anything. RspnsblMn hasn't expressed preferences for works - in any context. RspnsblMn hasn't "shelved" anything. MastCell is doing the "shelv[ing]." MastCell has "shelved" the New York Times piece (PMID 11646949) documenting ORI's Gallo and Popovic misconduct guilty verdicts as well as the Nature piece (PMID 2404208) documenting Congressman Dingell's initiation of his subcommittee's investigation of the, "Gallo-Pasteur row." MastCell is aware of this documentation yet, instead of making it available, chose to "shelve[]" it. MastCell also is trying to "shelve[]" Lang's, "The Gallo Case" and Dingell's subcommittee's leaked staff report, "The Institutional Response to the HIV Blood Test Patent Dispute and Related Matters." And MastCell previously "shelved" Crewdson's Science Fictions in part because, "[...A]ctually, his role is not so controversial anymore,..." (12 Jun '07) vis-a-vis Gallo's "role in identifying the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) as the infectious agent responsible for the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)..." (See point 6.)
I. RspnsblMn's previous questions remain: Is MastCell biased? Has MastCell read the Dingell staff report and/or Lang's "The Gallo Case?" Why doesn't MastCell work on the article instead of dismissing contributions for invalid reasons and/or Wikipedia technicalities? Maybe MastCell only knows - and accepts uncritically - what MastCell has allowed to be placed in the article.
J. MastCell's latest response raises new questions for RspnsblMn: Does MastCell not understand scholarship - the bedrock of WP policy? Does MastCell claim total authority over the Robert Charles Gallo, MD article? If so, based on complete knowledge? [Correction: RspnsblMntalk 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)]
OK. Let me be a bit more direct. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Also, please recognize that we're not in court here. This is a discussion page; let's have a discussion. A lengthy evidentiary summary of my many misdeeds, in which you refer to yourself in the third person, does nothing to move us toward consensus and smacks of grandstanding. This is not an adversarial proceeding, or at least should not be. Tell me briefly and objectively what you propose for the article, without the lengthy ad hominem stuff. MastCell Talk 23:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, from your comments it's evident that you are the same user as 70.4.91.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whose series of personal attacks and attempt to "out" me led to the deletion of their contributions (see deleted contribs) and the semiprotection of the page. So you're in a bit of a hole here. MastCell Talk 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
RspnsblMn would like MastCell to please address the issues and stop the evasions, stonewalling, & whining. How can there be a discussion if MastCell won't join the issues? Incidentally, submitting proposals for approval is submission to authority - not a substitute for discussion. RspnsblMn is on a couch not in a hole. RspnsblMntalk 03:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a bit silly. If you're not willing to propose specific changes and have a discussion about them, instead of referring to yourself in the third person and trying to score legalistic points, then I don't see a lot of progress being made here. MastCell Talk 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Good grief - more evasions. First, RspnsblMn has made numerous specific recommendations for the article (see discussion points 1-9 & A-J). It is not for RspnsblMn to distill them for MastCell. Second, the ball is on MastCell's side of the net. Or, as Lang would say, "the shoe is on the other foot." MastCell made certain edits and RspnsblMn challenged them as well as MastCell's justifications for them. In some cases, the justifications changed with time and in some cases were left ambiguous or were in part abandoned. Let's review them:
  • I. "The Gallo Case" in Serge Lang's book, Challenges.
  1. Initially rejected as, "AIDS-denialist propaganda." (WP-edit comment)
  2. Rejected again because, "I don't see Lang's view being as notable here..." AND "...Lang's opinion is not as clearly notable here..." (WP-edit comment)
  3. Next justification, "Serge Lang's commentary on the discovery of AIDS ... I don't think this is a sufficiently notable source..."
  4. Next, because, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links and information" AND the "book" lacks, "clear notability and prominence" (criteria: "...book apparently doesn't sell very well (e.g. Amazon rank 1,342,164) and has not been reviewed in any major outlets that I can find...") AND "Lang's idiosyncratic views on HIV make this a less credible source..." AND "In the popular press, both Impure Science by Steven Epstein and And the Band Played On present less-than-flattering pictures of Gallo, and both books are far more prominent, have been reviewed by major media including the New York Times, etc. All of these would make more appropriate sources and 'further reading' than Lang's book on these bases..." AND (maybe) "More fundamentally, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources..." [boldface added]
RspnsblMn has challenged all of these reasons yet MastCell has evaded the issues and has not documented her/his claims. Furthermore, proposing to substitute for contested sources in order to both address an imputed improper motive and "shelve[]" the contested works - simultaneously - is highly improper and bizarre. Considering the proposal's reasoning is based on incorrect application of WP policy and fails to acknowledge the issue whether the content of the substituted and contested sources are comparable, the proposal is outrageous. RspnsblMn asks again: has MastCell read Lang's, "The Gallo Case" as previously claimed (in a WP-edit comment)?
  • II. Rep. John Dingell's (D-MI) Subcommittee's leaked staff report, "The Institutional Response to the HIV Blood Test Patent Dispute and Related Matters" (ca. November 1994).
  1. Initially rejected as, "AIDS-denialist propaganda." (WP-edit comment)
  2. Rejected again but no reason specifically mentioning the report was provided.
MastCell has not subsequently commented on the staff report specifically or the "propaganda" claim despite requests to do so. Has MastCell read the staff report as previously claimed (in a WP-edit comment)?
  • III. Science Fictions by John Crewdson.
  1. Dismissed 12 Jun 07 by an edit reversion in part because, "[...A]ctually, his role is not so controversial anymore,..." vis-a-vis Gallo's, "role in identifying the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) as the infectious agent responsible for the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)..." and in part because, "those sources are totally inadequate, from a WP:RS and WP:BLP perspective, to criticize him in the second sentence." (The edit reverted had appended, "although his role in this discovery remains controversial," with 2 references - one being Science Fictions, to the quoted article text.) (WP-edit comment)
  2. Selectively retained later because, "Crewdson's reporting is clearly useful as a source - his book was reviewed in a number of major popular and scientific media, including the New England Journal of Medicine..."
  3. Still later, claimed, "...references should have clear notability and prominence. Crewdson's book does - it's been reviewed by a number of major media outlets, critically or not...."
RspnsblMn has challenged these reasons as illegitimate. RspnsblMn agrees, Science Fictions should be included (as See Also or Further Reading now) - but for different reasons: it is comprehensive in time period, events, and issues coverage - including Gallo's scientific research at LTCB, numerous investigations of LTCB, the "Gallo-Pasteur row", and afterward the IHV at UMd; it is detailed - even the virology & genetics are fully explained, thoroughly documented, and well-written; it provides much new information; and its primary character subject is Dr. Robert C. Gallo. RspnsblMn asks whether MastCell has read, Science Fictions.
Third, on the other hand, if MastCell thinks changes are needed and/or has specific changes in mind, it is not for RspnsblMn to presume what they are AND then propose them to MastCell for discussion and/or approval. MastCell can make her/his edits and be prepared to be challenged. Moreover, RspnsblMn will edit Robert Gallo w/out prior consultation of MastCell. RspnsblMntalk 04:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, this is clearly fruitless. You may edit once your account reaches maturity - since your IP edits (now deleted) were abusive enough to lead to semiprotection of the article. I'm happy to discuss any content issues with you should you choose to edit collaboratively. MastCell Talk 04:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Readers should know MastCell started a discussion elsewhere about Robert Gallo - w/out informing RspnsblMn. Why did MastCell choose the Fringe Theories noticeboard? RspnsblMn remains at the net: awaiting MastCell's return to the court. RspnsblMntalk 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Robert Gallo/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated start class for the following reasons:
  • Photograph, date of birth and basic biographical material present
  • Some references present, but some important material is unsourced
  • Some information on research interests, but could be expanded and needs attention to PoV
  • Some appropriate subheadings present, but further organisation would be beneficial
  • External links present which could be used to expand article

Last edited at 00:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Gallo/Archive_1&oldid=1159771474"