Talk:The Real Anthony Fauci

The links make clear that the words "controversial" and "inflammatory" are not part of reviews by the Guardian, Newsweek and Publishers weekly.

I added this information into the article and it was reverted.

Suggest that this context is added as follows.

Both The Guardian and Publishers Weekly described the book as controversial in articles on other topics. Newsweek described the book as "inflammatory" in an article about Norman Mailer changing publisher.

Or perhaps bring to the front the lack of reviews by major media organisations

There were no reviews by major media organisations. The Guardian and Publishers Weekly described the book as "controversial" in articles on other topics while Newsweek described the book as "inflammatory" in a similar side note. RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I am having a hard time understanding your view here. There's no expectation that reliably sourced descriptions of books should come from full reviews. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Or indeed from reviews. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The text that was inserted had the effect of undermining or deprecating the published assessments by RS. We don't do that, per NPOV and V. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The publisher Tony Lyons complained that the legitimate media would not touch his book, they didn't want to review or mention it. Lyons also said tech platforms wouldn't accept advertising. He found a sympathetic ear at the Washington Times (naturally).^[1] My guess is that the legit media were practicing WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE -- they didn't want to lend legitimacy to this fetid pile of feces, especially in the middle of the pandemic when amplifying Jr's views would arguably be killing people.

I agree with OP that reviews from reliable sources would we be helpful. It is hard to find good quotes discussing the book in any depth. Although Science-Based Medicine have covered RFK Jr.'s activities and some other anti-vax works, even they did not write an article specifically addressing the book.

Possiby a useful reference: an article in Business Insider blasted Tucker Carlson for an interview with Jr. promoting the book.^[2]

But generally speaking, finding RS articles which directly address this book and its claims would be a benefit to this article. -- M.boli (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

References

"amplifying Jr's views would arguably be killing people." Journalists and media people have ethics and an aversion to killing? I am genuinely surprised. Dimadick (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

To state this at almost the start of the article is a disgrace. The book is well referenced and fact based. Unlike this idiotic critique. 2A00:23C6:56E0:3601:CDD8:455F:1B2D:157B (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There is an article in the NYTimes that says I was in a gunfight and shot a man to death. It contains my real name and previous home address. Guess what? I did not shoot a man to death.

NYTimes is not a reliable source.

Maybe you still think Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Because NYTimes said so?

Is Wikipedia just a collection of the writings of ill-informed journalists?

The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

In essence yes, but the NYT is not the only souced we use. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no citation for this claim of disinformation. If you want that claim in the article, you should cite a source for it. Hooky6 (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Exact it is a well written book of people well educated 95.193.177.40 (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from @Slatersteven, @Hob Gadling and @M.Boli why they think it's fine to state that this book is "misinformation" without any citation whatsoever, and why it's not okay to mention the book is a New York Times bestseller in the lead of the article. I made an insignificant change to this article to make it less biased and more in harmony with WP:NPOV but apparently this is problematic? Why? Hooky6 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It is sourced, read the body of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't.

For example, the lead says this:

"In the book, Kennedy offers disinformation about Fauci's role during the HIV epidemic and the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and HIV/AIDS denialism."

There's no citation for this claim of "disinformation." Hooky6 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Your problem seems to be that you only read the lead, which summarizes the article. The lead therefore does not need citations, they are further down. See WP:LEDECITE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

AS I told them already, so I am going to ask them to read wp:cir. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Since this article would well qualify as a controversial one (per what is written in that Wikipedia:LEDECITE you have referenced), at the very least I'd say that the lead requires a citation for the claim of "misinformation."

But I also am firmly in the camp that this also fails WP:NeutralPOV. Hooky6 (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit removes sourced content, instead:

• RFK Jr's disinformation is merely his "interpretation" of Fauci
• Removing Jr's notability as an anti-vax conspiracy theorist
• Letting stand the FRINGE notion hydroxychloroquine is effective drug against Covid (and Fauci killed people by suppressing it).

I claim this is vandalism and removed it. But nope. So rather than continuing edit war I'm leaving it at m:The wrong version and invite other editors to handle this. M.boli (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page, @M.boli. My edit was certainly not intended as vandalism. Here is my rationale.

1) It's not encyclopedically appropriate to characterize an entire 480 page work as "disinformation", in Wikivoice, because "factcheck.org" and a handful of doctors have taken issue with specific aspects of the book. It's much more appropriate, in my view, to simply present the book as RFK's subjective interpretations, rather than using Wikivoice to offer commentary about those interpretations. Characterization and interpretation of Kennedy's arguments should be left to third parties, and the "critical reception" section provides sufficient commentary on the book.

"Disinformation", specifically, implies intentional fabrication, as opposed to "misinformation", so BLP issues also arise when we throw this label around in general terms, without directly attributing it. By using Wikivoice to call Kennedy's writings "disinformation", Wikipedia is not merely summarizing sources, it is affirmatively taking the position that RFK is a conscious, deliberate liar and manipulator . That's not a good idea, especially for a living person.

2) RFK could be characterized a number of ways. "Politician", "environmental lawyer", "activist", "presidential candidate", "vaccine skeptic", "conspiracy theorist", "member of the Kennedy family", "spreader of disinformation", and so on. In a simple, declaratory sentence like "this book was written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.", no additional characterization or framing is necessary.

If the reader wants to know more about contemporary media commentary about RFK, they can find it at the Wikipedia article about him. The choice to frame him, not as an environmental activist, a member of the Kennedy family, or a politician, but as an "anti-vaccination conspiracy theorist" is not only unnecessary, it's a pretty blatant insertion of a cherry-picked POV, one that is intended to sway the reader's feelings about the subject, rather than presenting factual information about the book. Perhaps that would be a fine way to write a persuasive/argumentative essay in school, but it's not a fine way to write an encyclopedia entry.

3) It doesn't matter whether or not Kennedy's views on hydroxychloroquine are "fringe". In the article about hydroxychloroquine, your point would be appropriate - undue weight should not be given to Kennedy's views on the subject. But this article is specifically about his book, so it should focus on presenting information about the contents of the book. The "critical reception" section already makes it clear how several other scientists have reacted to the book. We don't need to use this article to play referee, or to defend Anthony Fauci's reputation. That may be appropriate in other contexts, but not here - here, the statement I removed is unnecessary, and it introduces a POV, even if it's technically a true statement.

There have indeed been studies that have brought hydroxychloroquine's efficacy into question, but scientific study and debate on the issue is far from definitive, as this meta-analysis & other studies suggest. Regardless of your personal feelings about the hydroxychloroquine debate, inserting a POV about the topic into this article is not appropriate or encyclopedic. Let the reader read about the book, then let them read how other third parties have reacted to the book, and let the reader make up their mind. Jamming the "official Wikipedia position" down the reader's throat every other sentence is tacky and unprofessional.

I hope that you now understand why I made the edits in question. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The book is a book of conspiracy theories and incorrect medical information. To your points:

1. Saying the book is full of disinformation is not a stretch, it is congruent with what reliable medically-informed sources tell us. Perhaps an argument could be made for "misinformation" as opposed to "disinformation". But calling RFK Jr.'s book an "interpretation" is contrary to reliable sources and thus a disservice to our readers.
2. ID-ing RFK Jr. as a notable anti-vax conspiracy theorist is congruent with the book and his biography. If it were a book about environmental issues, then this article would ID him as an environmental lawyer or activist. If it were a biography of the Kennedy family or a history of Democratic politics it would ID him as a member of the famous political family. But it is a book making vaccine and conspiracy claims, written by a person notable for anti-vax conspiracy theories.
3. Stripping out the facts about hydroxychloroquine leaves a paragraph where RFK Jr. accuses somebody of causing a lot of death by discouraging the use of the drug. The pragmatic implicature of the text is: the drug is an anti-Covid boon to humankind. Reliable sources tell us it isn't. WP:FRINGE applies because we can't leave the user with that inference. I think we could also add a reference to the study which estimated that using the drug caused about 11,000 more deaths. The opposite of RFK Jr'.s disinformation book.

That is all. -- M.boli (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You clearly have very strong personal feelings about both RFK Jr. and the book. While I think being passionate about politics and having strong, deeply-held convictions is generally laudable, I'm not so sure that it's an asset in this sort of situation. When we're writing an encyclopedia, we must take great care to inform, rather than attempting to persuade. I'm concerned that your argument blurs the lines between those two activities.

Although I can certainly respond to & dissect your counter-points, I'm not sure if that's the most productive way to move the conversation forward. If other editors uncritically accept your arguments, I will write a response to them. But first, I think we should see what less-impassioned editors have to say about the topic.

I appreciate you opening the discussion, and I look forward to fleshing the issue out in more detail. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:WEASEL. "Some studies" is objectively worse than "studies". If you have other studies that contradict those studies, name them and we can evaluate whether they are legitimate or whether they have been done the those frauds the scientifically illiterate Kennedy loves to quote, like Andrew Wakefield. But it would be even better if you had material that is consistent with WP:MEDRS. And you should not try to blame the fact that you are reverted on "personal feelings" of those who happen to revert you (everybody who has experience with WP:FRINGE would have reverted it). Instead of forcing M.boli to come here, you should have started a discussion immediately after the first revert. See WP:BRD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I have stricken the clear personal attacks above by Philomathes2357, starting with the words "You clearly have very strong personal...". Don't personalize this. Comment on content, not editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You'd better also strike Hob Gadling's personal attacks against me, please. If you choose not to - noted, I can strike them myself.

This is ridiculous. Go ahead and take me to ANI. I'm sick of seeing blatant POV insertion and having to try to pretend that it's something else. At a certain point, a spade needs to be called a spade. This needs to be brought to the attention of a broader swath of uninvolved editors. Philomathes2357 (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Philomathes2357 (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Pointing out your bad reasoning is not a "personal attack". You need to brush up on your logic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Philomathes2357: ANI is for reporting editor behavior. For content, the relevant notice boards for this dispute would be WP:FTN, WP:BLPN, and WP:NPOVN. As I noted in the edit summary, reliable sources say "misinformation" at least as much as "disinformation". I didn't see support for describing the book as a subjective interpretation from RFK, or the other changes. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean, @M.boli, @Ixocactus, and others:

In the "Synopsis" subsection, multiple editors have insisted upon keeping the following phrase:

"Studies show the drug is ineffective against COVID-19"

There are a lot of problems with this. I thought they were self-evident and had simply been overlooked, but apparently, the phrase is seen as not only correct, but an essential part of the "synopsis".

Problem 1: "Factcheck.org" is not an appropriate source for making scientific statements of fact in Wikivoice. Duh.

Problem 2: "Factcheck.org"'s source for the claim is...factcheck.org! Nice! Specifically, this article, which was published all the way back in July of 2021. The article is a story about a scientific debate that was taking place at the time, between some scientists who were skeptical of hydroxychloroquine's efficacy and at least one scientist who stated "that the question on whether the drugs can provide a benefit for early treatment or prevention “remains open.”" In the article, the scientists' hypotheses, tentative conclusions, and critiques of each other's studies are presented in narrative form. It does not demonstrate that hydroxychloroquine is "ineffective", it merely presents that as a view that are held by some (but not all) scientists in the context of an ongoing debate.

Problem 3: A lot of research has taken place regarding hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 since July 2021. A sample:

• Outcomes after early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: An analysis of a database of 30,423 COVID-19 patients - published in New Microbes and New Infections in October 2023. The abstract states "Many studies have evaluated the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. Most retrospective observational studies demonstrate a benefit of using HCQ on mortality, but not most randomized clinical trials.", and the conclusion states "Analysis of this large online database showed that HCQ-AZ was consistently associated with the lowest mortality."

• Drugs and natural products for the treatment of COVID-19 during 2020, the first year of the pandemic. Published by the journal El Boletin Medico del Hospital Infantil de Mexico in 2024. It states "The natural products colchicine and Vitamin D3 were only effective in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, as was hydroxychloroquine." - in other words, the authors judge that hydroxychloroquine is effective in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

• Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 story: is the low-dose treatment the missing link? A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Published in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology in August 2023. It says "When pooling both observational and RCTs, low-dose HCQ was associated with decreased mortality (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: [0.55–0.97], I2 = 58%)".

Problem 4: As these studies demonstrate, there remains a lively, ongoing debate regarding hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19, surrounding dosage, severity of infection, and the relative merits of observational studies versus RCTs.

There are a lot of other studies like these from 2022-2024.

Problem 5: The phrase, besides being misleading and poorly sourced, is completely irrelevant to a "synopsis" of the book, which is the name of the section. There is already a "critical reception" section, where we provide third-party commentary about the book. The synopsis is for accurately summarizing the book in question, not for sloppily and inaccurately summarizing the current state of hydroxychloroquine research in order to further a narrative.

Problem 6: The only reason to include the phrase is to frame Kennedy's book in the context of a political narrative regarding Anthony Fauci, RFK, and others. It is a textbook example of POV pushing and the politicization of science.

Good encyclopedic writing and common sense demand that the phrase be removed entirely. A compromise might be to accurately describe the state of hydroxychloroquine-COVID research, but I still think it would be undue here, and the energy needed to do so would be better spent updating the out-of-date article about the subject.

I understand that the goal of many is to portray RFK as negatively as possible, so that the reader understands that they are supposed to dislike him. But please, let's not politicize science in order to push that POV. It's tacky, unencyclopedic, and misleading.

The fact that bringing this into question has led to me being accused of being a "vandal" and a "weasel" further suggests that emotions are at play, rather than neutral analysis.

You are all smart folks. Let's do better. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Since this article is about the book TRAF, it needs sources that talk about TRAF. Scientific studies typically do not mention such crappy books by uninformed laypeople. Factchecks do, that is why we use those as a source for this article. But we also have a wikilink to the relevant article, which contains better sources about exactly this subject and eliminates the problem that factchecks are weak sources.

Thank you for equating your opinion with truth in phrases like Good encyclopedic writing and common sense demands and You are all smart folks. Let's do better as if the conclusion from those were to agree with you. That way, everybody can see that you think you know better than everybody else.

Thank you also for accusing everybody who disagrees with you of a specific agenda. That way, everybody can see that your way of thinking runs along the lines of hidden agendas and not along the lines of cooperatively writing good articles.

Thank you also for interpreting the WP:WEASEL link as calling you a weasel. That way, everybody can see that they have to explain even the simplest things to you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The sentence in question is not about the book TRAF. The sentence characterizes the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19. Therefore, the sentence is technically subject to the guidelines of MEDRS, which says "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article".

I guess that's problem #7. That pretty much means we have no choice but to either remove the sentence or to invoke IAR to keep it as-is.

I did not accuse "everybody" who disagrees with me of anything. Thanks for the personal attack.

Thanks also for the condescending "everybody can see that they have to explain even the simplest things to you." I find that especially compelling. As I said: let's do better. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is about the book, so all sources have to be about the book. See WP:SYNTH. Linking to an article that is based on WP:MEDRS sources is enough; sources that are about a crappy book and fulfil MEDRS do not exist, therefore the demand for such sources is unreasonable.

I did not accuse Really? I understand that the goal of many is to portray RFK as negatively as possible is a pretty clear case of poisoning the well. It implicitly accuses everybody who contradicts you of having a hidden agenda.

Thanks also for the condescending Don't make such stupid mistakes (or intentional misrepresentations? Who knows) as confusing a wikilink with calling you a weasel, and people will not treat you like someone who makes stupid mistakes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If all sources have to be about the book, all claims made in the article should have to be about the book. The claim I am taking issue with has nothing to do with the book, which is why it should be removed. If it is not removed, it needs to at least be cited sufficiently, and treated as a claim subject to MEDRS, not a claim about the book.

That's not an accusation. That's just an acknowledgement of an obvious fact that everyone sees. I'm not even necessarily saying that it's a bad thing - maybe there is a cognizable argument for doing so, in order to make sure the reader doesn't fall prey to "misinformation". That argument has not been made, though, and even if it were, I still think the sentence in question is improperly sourced, undue, and misleading.

As I said, I'm open to a reasonable compromise. "When they assessed clinical trial data in 2023, Catalina Jaramillo and Kate Yandell at factcheck.org wrote that several large randomized clinical trials had found no benefits of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients."

That sentence would probably still be undue, but it would be an improvement. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This whole push about whitewashing hydroxychloroquine here is a violation of WP:COATRACK. This article is about the book. Take it to the hydroxychloroquine article and settle it there. Then, and only then, could one maybe be justified in making extremely short mention here, in the context of how the book mentions it, not to promote it. If that were to happen, it should be in its historical context, showing that Kennedy promoted a drug, that at the time he was promoting it, was not accepted by the medical profession as effective for treating COVID-19, and that statistics had shown its use increased the number of deaths. That would be consistent with how we treat fringe subjects, and much about Kennedy is fringe. Then, if the scientific consensus changed, and several RS mentioned the book and Kennedy's claims as being prescient at the time, one could also mention (not instead of) that newer fact here using those RS.

We are FAR FROM ANYWHERE CLOSE TO ANY OF THAT NOW. Philomathes2357, you need to drop this if you wish to avoid returning to ANI and getting a topic ban or worse. (I don't recall right now, but aren't you editing under some type of topic ban or warnings already and need to be careful?) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You could only call this "whitewashing" if you ignored my initial comment about the 6 problems with the sentence, which I suspect is the case.

If we want to avoid WP:COATRACK, rather than misrepresenting the state of scientific research with an out-of-date, non-medical source, perhaps we just remove that sentence? It's the only sentence in the "synopsis" section that isn't about the book. It's a dishonest, intentionally misleading sentence. We could probably repurpose the source and use it in the "critical reception" section, but only to discuss the book, not to summarize the state of hydroxychloroquine research.

I'm frustrated, because what I'm saying should not be remotely controversial, much less trigger threats, personal attacks, and ALL CAPS RAGE. I feel like I'm living in upside-down world whenever I get on Wikipedia. Something's gone seriously wrong with the project. Maybe an RFC is in order here. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As others have said, this is not about COVID it is about the book. Please read wp:synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The sentence has nothing to do with the book. The sentence makes a factual claim about the current state of scientific research about hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19. So, it must be held to the standard of MEDRS, as another editor mentioned above. The source currently cited is a non-medical source, and it's out of date. I've provided multiple medical sources from the past 12 months that contradict the claim that's made in the sentence. Hydroxychloroquine's efficacy should not be adjudicated here. The claim is misleading and should be removed. I agree with you, Slatersteven this article is about the book. So let's remove the sentence in question. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So lets use this source https://www.who.int/news/item/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19 Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Why would we use a non-medical news article from July 2020, when research was in its infancy? Research on the topic is ongoing. Why not use one of the three sources I linked to above, all of which are from actual scientific publications, not news articles, and all of which are from the past 12 months? Better yet, why not just remove the sentence? Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You do know who, WHO is? Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course I do. The article you linked to is out-of-date, as I mentioned, and it is a press release, not an academic study. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So WHO does ow recommends it use, link please?

Also https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/hydroxychloroquine-treatment-covid-19/art-20555331 Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please look at my initial comment in this thread, under the subheading "Problem 3". There are several academic studies from the past 12 months that conclude that, within certain parameters, the drug is effective.

My point is not that hydroxychloroquine is effective. This article isn't the place to adjudicate that. My point is that research is ongoing, and academic literature from 2023 and 2024 demonstrates that the topic is not settled, so we should not be spreading medical misinformation in Wikivoice by stating, or implying, that it is settled. I can't think of a single good reason to do so. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

OK so should we change it to "But there is not evidence proofing its efficacy"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? In the previous paragraph, the COVID vaccine is mentioned, but we don't go out of our way to jam in a sentence about the COVID vaccine being "safe and effective".

Why not just provide a "synopsis" of the book? There's already a section for reactions to the book. We can talk about hydroxychloroquine there, if you want.

Even if we re-worded the sentence, I think a better phrasing would be "research on the topic is ongoing and has shown mixed results". Your proposed wording is incorrect, as evidence of potential efficacy has been found in multiple studies - I only posted 3 of them, to make my point - there are others.

Why are we trying to weaponize and twist scientific research to try to frame RFK in a negative light? The rest of the article already goes out of its way to denigrate him to the point of absurdity - and I say that as someone who doesn't even like the guy. This is really strange. Let's just remove the darn sentence and move on with our lives. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Because it makes a claim, we can't just up in the claim read wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"we can't just up in the claim"? Can you elaborate on that? Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I was trying, you jumped in while I was editing it. We repeat a claim, we have to also put in any claims it is false or inaccurate, read wp:blp. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar with BLP. I'm not familiar with an injunction within BLP to use non-medical sources to spread medical misinformation, which is what we're dealing with here in my view. Could you kindly quote the exact section of BLP that you think justifies/necessitates this sentence's inclusion? Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

od "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." we cannot say a person deliberately tried to kill people without including any information that contradicted such a claim. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article" (so arguably the recsi8ign line "The book accuses Fauci of deliberately neglecting to use hydroxychloroquine in order to increase the number of people who would die from COVID-19" should not even by the the article). For a start. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

THis is going nowhere and needs closing. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Philo, "spread medical misinformation" is what Kennedy does. That you consider RS to be doing that based on your opinion of the current state of research is just that, your opinion, and you're getting pushback on that. It would be wise for you to not "die on that hill" without the backing of fellow editors.

There is no rush. Wait for the medical consensus to change. Then we'll gladly help you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a medical consensus. That's the whole issue. Take a look at the studies I linked and explain how portraying the issue as "settled science" is anything but misleading. It's not "my interpretation". The notion that "studies have shown hydroxychloroquine is ineffective" is YOUR interpretation (plural you) - one that happens to be highly dubious, and based on one non-medical source from non-experts from 2021.

The Wikipedia page on the topic of hydroxychloroquine is woefully out of date. That should be fixed, too, and I'd gladly help in doing so if one of you actually cares enough about hydroxychloroquine to join me. But the fact that that article is bad does not justify leaving poorly-sourced, incorrect medical information on this article. I think that if I allowed the misleading medical information to stay up, without significant pushback, I would actually be violating the rules.

I don't say this as an insult, but rather an acknowledgement of a self-evident truth: I understand that the goal of this article is to paint RFK in as kooky a light as possible, and ensure that the reader does not make the mistake of taking him seriously. You can say "that's not true!", but come on. You aren't fooling anyone. And I'm not even saying that it's necessarily a bad goal! He is a little kooky! I'm just saying that this particular sentence cannot be justified on any level. Nobody has even really tried to justify it - they just respond to me with emotion and half-baked arguments that don't even address the points I made.

I've been trying to be reasonable. I've proposed several alternatives. I've tried to meet in the middle and reach a consensus. Here's another one. What if we say this:

"According to Kate Yandell and Catalina Jaramillo at Factcheck.org, studies as of July 2021 had not demonstrated hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness against COVID-19". Then, we can keep the source, and keep the "rebuttal" of the synopsis, without going overboard and putting medical misinformation in Wikivoice or misleading the reader. How about that? Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, final thought until someone else responds, @Valjean - I do not consider RS to be spreading medical misinformation, as you say. I think (know) that Wikipedia is spreading medical misinformation (arguably disinformation at this point) in order to promote a certain narrative, by cherry-picking a dubious source while ignoring a plethora of much more reliable academic sources that contradict it. There's nothing wrong with the RS, there's something wrong with the way Wikipedians are choosing to use/not use the sources that are available.

That is my contention, just to be clear. I'd like for that contention to be acknowledged, taken seriously, and either thoroughly rebutted or incorporated into the consensus, rather than hand-wringing and ban-threatening. That is all for now. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

A reason the discussion is going nowhere is Philo dismisses with alacrity pretty good explanations as "very strong personal feelings" and "goal of many is to portray RFK as negatively as possible". I further note that before responding I briefly tried to ascertain the current reliable stance toward HCQ as Covid treatment or prophylaxis. As people have discovered, the public health authorities (CDC, WHO) strongly advise against it. The popular research topics seem to have shifted from does it work a few years ago to nowadays how bad is it and how much damage did it cause during the pandamic. The changes that Philo is pushing are decidedly fringe.

I agree with Slatersteven it is time to close the discussion. Furthermore people might put the hydroxychloroquine articles on their watchlists. The articles possibly could use updating, but not with fringe notions. -- M.boli (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization the explanations as "pretty good".

In fact, the explanations fell so far short of being "pretty good", that it led me to make the mistake of questioning your "real" motives, which I shouldn't have done. I'm sorry for doing that. I was deeply annoyed that you suggested that I was a vandal, and I reacted personally. I take you at your word and I don't have any reason to believe you have any hidden agenda.

However, you, nor anybody else, has addressed the 7 problems I identified. It's almost impressive that there could be 7 distinct problems within a single declarative sentence, but here we are.

"I briefly tried to ascertain the current reliable stance toward HCQ as Covid treatment or prophylaxis"

Did you read the 3 sample articles I provided, and/or the articles it cites? They are not intended to be representative of all literature on the subject - they are intended to demonstrate that modern, 2023-2024 academic peer-reviewed literature has on multiple (more than 3) occasions found that, within certain parameters, hydroxychloroquine has been found to be effective against COVID-19, especially in scholarly observational research. Your characterization of recently-published academic, peer-reviewed literature is not accurate.

The point is, this article should not be the place to adjudicate that topic - that is why the article should refrain from making poorly-sourced Wikivoice statements about medicine, and should stick to providing what it claims to provide: a "synopsis" and a "critical reception" of the book.

The article's lead already tells the reader that the book is "misinformation" and "a conspiracy theory extravaganza". We don't need to mislead the reader about the science with semantic games in order to hammer the point home even further. That damages our credibility. I'm sure the readers will come away from the article with the correct opinions about RFK, even if the sentence I object to is removed. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

WHO is an eminently reliable MEDRS.

• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Hydroxychloroquine, 28 March 2023 | Q&A

WHO does not recommend hydroxychloroquine to prevent or treat COVID-19. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"Studies show the drug is ineffective against COVID-19." This statement is hyperlinked to a page that isn't very well maintained. There is better evidence out there. The following website has links to 410 HCQ Covid studies - the vast majority of them indicate improvement:

"Early treatment shows 66% [54‑74%] lower risk with pooled effects in 39 studies. Results are similar for higher quality studies and for peer-reviewed studies. The 17 mortality and 16 hospitalization results show 76% [61‑85%] lower mortality and 41% [28‑51%] lower hospitalization." HCQ for COVID-19 https://c19hcq.org/meta.html 2001:569:5045:500:7D62:2B88:E5FE:E65C (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure this is a better source. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

c19early is an (anonymous) activist source and totally fails our strict WP:MEDRS guideline. Reading their FAQ is informative and concerning. They deliberately use "multiple domain names" in efforts to avoid "censorship". We don't know who they are, there is no peer-review, and no evidence of fact-checking. FAIL! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

This source labels them a "major source of misinformation". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

NewsGuard has a withering analysis: "A network of websites that have misrepresented research to promote hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin as proven COVID-19 treatments, despite clinical trials finding that they are not effective." Source -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, IP, Slatersteven and Valjean are right - the link you provided should not, itself, be cited. However, the scholarly studies serve to demonstrate that the sentence in question implies a certainty about hydroxychloroquine that does not actually exist in the scientific community. I demonstrated this in a previous thread.

It's deliciously ironic that the writer at NewsGuard would accuse someone else of "misrepresenting research" while doing so itself in the very same sentence. The funniest part is that the author probably did so with a straight face, oblivious to what he was doing.

This article would be just as good, if not better, without the sentence in question. We have no right or responsibility to be selectively picking information to "debunk" RFK's book in the "summary" section - let the reliable sources do the talking in the "criticism" section. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Synopsis doesn’t reflect any content in the book 172.58.142.200 (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

What do we say is in the book that is not in the book? Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr would’ve been sued into oblivion if any of his claims were false. No such claims have or ever will be made. Chew on that… 174.29.178.113 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Your way of thinking is irrelevant. (It is also false. Not everybody wants to waste their time on lawsuits to punish wackjobs.) Wikipedia follows reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling better to just revert/deny this sort of comment especially when from a one-off editor. Doug Weller talk 08:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@User:Doug Weller I regard the choice of how to handle things like this as a matter of taste. Since I have a watchlist, pinging me makes sense only when my contribution is older than a month or so, and if it is not, it ticks me off. When it is about a matter of taste, getting pinged ticks me off more.

If you don't like my responses, please just delete the thread instead of summoning me. It's less effort for everybody. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Hob. These one-offs just annoy me and I shouldn't have bothered you. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I added well-sourced details about Fauci's response to the book. I included it in the introduction, but am open to placement in a standalone subsection if others feel it is warranted. Either way, since the article details a book focusing on one single, living public figure, the response by that figure is required in my opinion. RyeCityRoller (talk) RyeCityRoller (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:Lead, this should be in the body, probably the Response section. Then make very short mention of it in the Lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This should read: The Real Anthony Fauci is a 480-page book written by 2024 Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr, nephew of former President John F. Kennedy, ... 96.20.226.196 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

"Studies show the drug is ineffective against COVID-19. The World Health Organization recommends it not be used for treating or for preventing COVID". This sentence does not seem to be part of a synopsis of Kennedy's book, but rather it seems to be a criticism of the book. This criticism should be moved to the critical resception section of the article.

Overall, the synopsis section in this article is written as a rebuttal of the book, which is not appropriate. It would seem natural for the synopsis in this article to be a neutral summary of the points Kennedy tries to make in this book, with criticism of the accuracy of Kennedy's claims included in the Critical Reception section, or even in a "Allegations of False Information" subsection to the Critical Reception section. 84.74.130.179 (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems a valid request. Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia avoids lending credibility to fringe health-related misinformation. If a book says that arsenic will prolong your life, we might include that in the summary but wouldn't let this unsafe fringe notion stand by itself. Even if there is a criticism section later. RFK Jr.'s book promotes fringe debunked medicine. We summarize the book, but good practice is to point to medical authority so we don't lend credibility to medical nonsense in wiki-voice. -- M.boli (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Rather than continue an edit war, I have removed this proposed addition for discussion:

In the National Review, journalist Matthew Scully wrote "With courtroom standards of proof — everything cited and sourced to government databases and to peer-reviewed publications — Kennedy details egregious wrongdoing and raises entirely legitimate questions about the workings of the federal health bureaucracy during Covid and long before."^[1]

It's pretty dubious and undue. It is deceptive fluff that is advocacy of fringe POV. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Not a "proposed addition", this has been there since June 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Anthony_Fauci&diff=prev&oldid=1160140784 and is a completely normal review --FMSky (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. Now fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The descriptions "dubious", "undue", "deceptive fluff" and "advocacy of fringe POV" are accurate though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @M.boli:: A YouTube playlist is not something that can ever be used as a source 1. Please revert your edit and read WP:RELIABLE -- FMSky (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Where in RELIABLE does it discuss Youtube? Silverseren^C 03:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Where did I say that RELIABLE discusses YouTube? --FMSky (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Then where are you getting the claim that a Youtube playlist can't ever be used as a source? Where in our policies or guidelines is that stated? Silverseren^C 03:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Jesus Christ this website is finished. I will let you guys do your own thing and won't bother you anymore. Have fun --FMSky (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay? I'll just state for others that Youtube is considered a specialized source whose reliability depends on the owner of the channel in question. If it's by a recognized news organization, for example, then the videos would just be considered video content by the news organization, no different than if it was being held on the news' website itself. Similarly, content by a recognized expert is reliable, though likely needs attribution to the person when using such videos or a playlist, as has seemingly been done properly in this article. Silverseren^C 03:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@M.boli: Regarding "Reviewing Jr's book chock full of AIDS denial the expert says its author is an AIDS denier. The notion that this violates BLP is pretty far-fetched."

WP:BLPSPS says, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article."

Since the review is self-published, the article content cited to it can include loads of negative appraisals of the book. I don't see how BLP would allow the inclusion of self-published negative apprasails of the man even if the review's author is an expert or correct. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I changed the article to quote Wilson thusly: Jr. "goes full HIV/AIDS denial". The objection above seems like a rationalization. If somebody writes a book explaining why Catholic belief is the truth, we would say the author is a "Catholic". If they write a book explaining that Earth is flat they are properly termed a "flat Earther". These are very ordinary descriptive terms. Jr. wrote a book with a hundred pages of detailed HIV/AIDS denial. He is an AIDS denier. Anyway, there is now a quote which meets the objection. -- M.boli (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Well where is its reputation for fack checking? Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)