Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"He is the fourth member of the Kennedy family to seek the presidency"

This may be stated by several outlets, but it is false. He is at least the fifth. In addition to JFK, RFK Sr., and Ted Kennedy there was also Kennedy in-law Sargent Shriver, who ran for president in 1976. SecretName101 (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Endorsements

Endorsements -RFK Jr gets his first major endorsement for president - Aaron Rodgers: — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDunne20 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Fact check "chaos agent"

The headline of article used makes it sound like they are saying Steve Bannon recruited Kennedy as a candidate and then said Kennedy is a "chaos agent". But the article actually says "People familiar with the matter told the outlet that Bannon hoped Kennedy could serve as a "useful chaos agent" in the election while also spreading "anti-vaccine sentiment around the country," according to CBS News' Robert Costa." So it changes from Steve Bannon in the wikipedia page and headline to "people familiar with the matter according to CBS News' Robert Costa" which is not Steve Bannon. Asper420 (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC) — Asper420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This has been fixed. Some of the MSM language around this bordered on defamatory, coming close to suggesting Bannon had somehow advised or financed him. - Tzaquiel (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Left and right

stating that he wishes to bridge the divide between left and right in the country is clearly the better, NPOV wording. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources

Should this article contain lengthy statements by RFK that are purely primarily-sourced? I don't like reverting so I'm bringing it here. DFlhb (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

For the most part, no. Short quotes can be acceptable and useful if they help supplement existing prose. But lengthy paragraph quotes are unnecessary and can border on political advertising. Woko Sapien (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Finding some middle ground

I've reverted much of the previous editing spree, which removed relevant and sourced material without any explanation and left this page a borderline advertisement (WP:SOAPBOX). That said, I've tried to keep much of the new material that was added (minus the puffery). Hopefully, this version will be broadly acceptable to everyone. Woko Sapien (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Re: Anne Frank

Please read RFK's statement on this matter. - Tzaquiel (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Tweet has been added as a supplemental source to show that Kennedy rejects the media's insinuation regarding his statement. However, that does mean that the passage must be removed from the article altogether. If you believe that it should be, please make your case here first. Woko Sapien (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Interviews as Primary Sources

@Woko Sapien Please consult Wikipedia's guidance regarding the usage of primary sources: Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources - Wikipedia.

You have flagged many of my citations as in insufficient, whereas per Wikipedia's policy an individual's public statement about THEIR OWN positions can be sufficiently cited as a primary source.

To quote from the article:

"However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source"

When RFK Jr. states his position on Ukraine, and I link him stating that position in an interview on Twitter to some 2.1 million viewers, you do not need specialized knowledge to confirm he stated his position. I can provide time stamps in the talk section if you'd like to confirm that he did in fact lay out his positions in the manner described on the site, but you do not need a secondary source to confirm that a person has described their own position in a given way, when that position is recorded describing their own position.

"An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements. Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name."

RFK's was asked about his positions, he described them explicitly, and I provided the link to the supporting material. I feel that you're politically badgering me, rather than actually stewarding the page. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

A few things:

• Wikipedia's policy also states that Twitter interviews must have at least 2.5 million viewers in order to be applicable...okay, I'm joking (not really sure how the audience size factors into your argument anyway).
• You're correct that primary sources are acceptable for uncontroversial information (date of birth, place of birth, mother's maiden name, etc.). However, one's position on the Ukraine-Russia conflict is not uncontroversial, and to suggest otherwise is plain silly. Things like political positions should ultimately be backed up by secondary sources (newspaper articles, academic articles, and so on).
• Direct quotes should be readily traceable to the source they came from, and a 2-hour interview without any timestamps is not readily traceable. If you can provide the timestamps for the quotations, I totally encourage you to restore the quotes. However, the timestamps will be no good in the talk page. The timestamps should be added to the inline citation for each quote.

Woko Sapien (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"Things like political positions should ultimately be backed up by secondary sources (newspaper articles, academic articles, and so on)."

I strongly disagree. Kennedy's position on Ukraine is controversial, but it is well-defined and there is no argument about what his position is. I included a primary direct quote from his website describing the position....but you reverted it.

Apparently Kennedy can only believe something if some secondary source reports he believes it, if he himself says it it doesn't count?

First, citing wikipedia:

"Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements." The quote from his campaign site was clearly attributed, and it was reverted. I also consider citing an interview in which a person described their position 'clearly attributed', but will instead use direct quotes and timestamps as you requested.

In my most humble opinion your reversions are bordering on vandalism. They are not consistent with Wikipedia policy or common sense.

I am going to include timestamps and direct quotes and I am asking that you do not proceed to revert them due to 'advertising' or some such nonsense. I don't understand what public good is gained by preventing the clearly described views of a presidential hopeful from making it to Wikipedia. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ergglebergglrflorg I'll take you at your word on the timestamps and look forward to seeing them added. However, I'll likely delete your "independent media" section again. It borders on WP:PUFFERY and contains original research. Woko Sapien (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Please explain where exactly I am engaging in puffery or I will have to flag you for vandalism.

I cited numerous secondary sources where the authors both spoke highly of Kennedy and interviewed him, or only spoke highly of him. If you don't believe me, go ahead and watch the videos I cited.

"and contains original research." What exactly do you mean by this? Are you taking my posts down for using primary sources when I use primary sources, and then calling secondary sources "original research"?

I have not mischaracterized anything written by Time Magazine, FiveThiryEight Polls, or the channels I've cited.

I even defined 'independent media' for you using the associated Wikipedia page because you weren't sure what that was. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ergglebergglrflorg A rundown of every softball podcast interview he's given seems WP:UNDUE. Also, one of those Hill articles is an opinion piece by Douglas MacKinnon who's a former Reagan/Bush speechwriter. Hardly seems like independent journalism to me. I'd be happy to add it to the "right-wing support" section though. Woko Sapien (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"A rundown of every softball podcast interview he's given seems WP:UNDUE"

A) Hardly 'every' podcast. I could go on for tens of millions of combined views if I wanted to.

B) If we can't discuss his public reception, then please, delete the whole section, your contributions included.

C) You clearly didn't watch the video with Piers Morgan. He was grilled on that interview, it wasn't 'softball' by a longshot.

You seem to still be confused about the definition of 'independent media'. Please read the wikipedia article about it, it does not mean 'unaffiliated to a political party'.

The Hill is an independent publication, so if you want to move the article by Douglas to Rightwing support that's fine, but the other one belongs where it is (Schoen is by no means a right-winger). Additionally, Piers Morgan is independent media, Carl Zha is not 'right wing' (just the opposite) neither is Halper, and the other well-received interview I cited has a bipartisan set of interviewers.

If you remove this because it lists public reception you didn't like, it is vandalism. Plain and simple. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ergglebergglrflorg Fair enough, but most of it can probably be reassigned to the opening section of "public reception". Calling out independent media makes it seem like there's some sort of groundswell of support, which is doubtful at this point and could be WP:CRYSTALBALL. I'll toy around with it a bit though. Woko Sapien (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to move it around a bit I don't mind, and I apologize for saying that you are 'dogmatically committed to censorship, and so threaten to revert anything that gets posted about his positions'. You haven't wholesale ripped my contributions out, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you do the same for me. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your accusations of: "Undue"

'Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.'

You listed several negative pieces with (presumably) millions of combined readers. I listed several pieces with millions of CONFIRMED combined viewers, and coupled that with polls showing that as much as half of the population of the country views him favorably.

But you are dogmatically committed to censorship, and so threaten to revert anything that gets posted about his positions.

I am genuinely curious, why? Are you worried his actual positions will cause him to gain traction, do you genuinely think that he has no real support and thus any source speaking favorably of him does not count as 'reliable'? I am trying to understand if you are working in good faith or not here. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ergglebergglrflorg the only politician I support is councilman Les Wynan. Some people say he should do more thinkin' though. Woko Sapien (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The number of readers is simply not a criterion for the reliability of sources. Why the hell would it?

People have been grasping for straws trying to whitewash Kennedy's pro-disease stance and his endangering of people's lives since he announced he wanted to be president instead of the president, but this one takes the cake. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling unfortunately, the whitewashers seem to be awfully aggressive with their editing, as seen above. I get the feeling there are WP:SOCKPUPPETs among us. Woko Sapien (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

A lot of allegations, a supreme lack of impartiality, and then false accusations that I am threatening your personal safety made on my talk page.

Genuinely, does this sound like a threat to your personal safety?

"If you want to move it around a bit I don't mind, and I apologize for saying that you are 'dogmatically committed to censorship, and so threaten to revert anything that gets posted about his positions'. You haven't wholesale ripped my contributions out, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you do the same for me. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]"

Did something else I say leave the impression that I am coming to harm you?

Or are you pearl clutching and attempting to intimidate with me by alleging that I am a violent threat? I was frustrated because you revoked cited material. I am currently frustrated because you have repeatedly alleged I am a puppet and stated that I am making you concerned for your safety.

It is not civil, is bullying disguised as victimhood. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"People have been grasping for straws trying to whitewash Kennedy's pro-disease stance "

Please point out where I 'white-washed' his vaccine-skeptical stance. Categorizing it as 'pro-disease' shows that you are not interested in impartiality, the man is not trying to spread leprosy, he misjudges the efficacy and safety of vaccines.

Seriously, the edits are public. I have not touched any section pertaining to vaccination.

I left what was written about his vaccine stance up because it was well-cited. I included other content, because if you look at his campaign website or his numerous interviews vaccines are not a priority for him, national unity, RussoUkrainian war, energy, and the environment are. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Please point out where I 'white-washed' his vaccine-skeptical stance Actually, I did not say that you did. I did say you were grasping at flimsier straws than the people who did.

Categorizing it as 'pro-disease' shows that you are not interested in impartiality Since impartiality is not required from editors, there is no problem with that. I do not want to add "pro-disease" to the article, although reliable sources (SBM) have called him that. He and his cronies are killing people by telling them and their neighbors to not protect themselves.

Can we please return to improving the article? Your Twitter source failed to convince anybody. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"Can we please return to improving the article? Your Twitter source failed to convince anybody."

You say that, and yet there are several people here saying that

1) "You make valid points" - Dumuzid (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

2) That timestamping a primary sourced interview was sufficient to establish Kennedy's position " I'll take you at your word on the timestamps and look forward to seeing them added" -Woko Sapien (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

3) "And while tweets are indeed a poor source in general the same does not automatically apply to a two hour video that happens to be posted on twitter (that is what a lot of this is about, right?)." -- Random person no 362478479 (talk)

4) Wikipedia's own content guidelines explain that primary sources are sufficient to establish what a person says about themself. I established how Kennedy describes his own positions. And incidentally how millions of US citizens who watch his interviews and listen to his podcasts view his positions

So look at that, three other people on this small page have either agreed that direct quotes from the Twitter interview with time stamps are a welcome addition, that they should be sufficient, or that I at least have an argument in the case of Dumuzid. You're manufacturing a consensus.

"I did say you were grasping at flimsier straws than the people who did." No, you said people were grasping at straws to white-wash his 'pro-disease' political positions, and that I took the cake.

Posting his opinions on energy, Ukraine-Russia relations, and American disunity takes the cake for grasping at straws to white wash disease?

This is what I am saying, you are not impartial personally, and anyone trying to post Kennedy's less controversial opinions is getting lambasted with revisions and vitriol in the talk section. You can have whatever views you have, but I feel that you are letting those opinions interfere with actually fairly presenting the Kennedy campaign page. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• The prominence of each viewpoint in those sources is established by citing WP:RSes - especially WP:BESTSOURCES, which means independent, secondary, high-quality WP:RSes. A twitter post establishes nothing; no matter how many people you believe viewed it (something that you haven't actually established, since Twitter itself is not a RS for that) it's an extremely low-quality source - almost as low-quality as a source can be while still being something we might be able to use in certain limited ways. If you feel that his viewpoints on these subjects are prominent, it should be easy for you to find secondary sources covering them, rather than just a single twitter post; similarly, if you believe Twitter's numbers are accurate, and that that is important and lends importance to his comments, then secondary WP:RSes should reflect that importance, and you should be able to find them covering the parts that you feel are so significant. Without that it's basically your own WP:OR - your personal opinions about his viewership numbers and their meaning; your personal opinions about which parts of his twitter post are important and how significant they are, and so on. The fact that you're trying to weigh these things equal to the extensively well-cited section on his views about vaccines throws this into stark relief - look at the quality of sourcing in that section; if you want to weigh another section equal to it, you should find sourcing that at least approaches that level. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  The positions of the presidential candidate RFK go far beyond vaccines and encompass many different topics. The best and most accurate source for an individual's positions are the public testimony of that individual himself.

  Claiming that a public attestation of a candidates' position which reached millions should not count because it was made on Twitter entirely disregards new media and the way modern candidates interact with their bases and the public more generally.

  I never reverted any of the sections on vaccines, because they were well-cited. My sections, also, contacted direct transcription of the candidate's public statements, on Twitter, on his websites, and as cited by secondary sources.

  " A twitter post establishes nothing; no matter how many people you believe viewed it "

  Wrong. A twitter post from a verified account can be used to establish that an individual made a remark and stated a position. It does not prove that the statement itself is true, but simply that it was made. I cited secondary sources for his most controversial statements. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Claiming that a public attestation of a candidates' position which reached millions should not count because it was made on Twitter entirely disregards new media Then the Wikipedia rules entirely disregard new media. We just follow those rules. If you want to change the rules, this is not the right place. Wikipedia talk:Verifiability is the right place. But you will need better reasons than the ones you used up to now. Especially the "many people saw it, therefore it must be reliable" bit is not so hot. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  "many people saw it, therefore it must be reliable"

  Way to mischaracterize my statement.

  My argument from the beginning has been:

  "However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source"

  and

  "An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about themself."

  Both from Wikipedia's rules.

  When Kennedy says his political position is X, we can say that he said his position is X, especially in an article about his positions!

  A 2-hour primary source interview hosted on Twitter and backed up with timestamps to clearly attribute direct quotes of a politician is still a primary source, it doesn't stop being one because it is on Twitter. The view count I have provided is simply to combat claims of "WP:Undue" and to remind people that there are large interviews where perspectives of truth have been provided that have captured substantial public attention. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• The Ukraine section was massively undue - multiple entire paragraphs cited to a single primary source with no secondary coverage. Additionally, it had WP:OR issues (the entire "however" paragraph was cited solely to sources that didn't mention RFK's 2024 presidential campaign at all), WP:OVERQUOTING issues (a massive quote with no secondary coverage to indicate its importance) and serious WP:TONE issues. The section should summarize the fact that RFK is opposed to the war in neutral, unemotive terms, not attempt to reproduce essentially everything he has said on the subject verbatim. There are similar problems elsewhere - we cannot cite entire sections solely to primary sources. Also see WP:ABOUTSELF; many of these cites to Twitter are unduly self-serving, and others are about third parties (eg. parts of the text I remove consist of RFK making assertions about other people's opinions and positions, which we absolutely cannot use a Twitter post for under any circumstances.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I've removed everything cited solely to primary sources; there's not enough to be salvageable here and I have serious concerns that putting so much weight on a single twitter post has serious WP:DUE issues in that it's being weighted equally to the health policy section, which has massively more high-quality coverage. Ergglebergglrflorg, you've said that you think that it is due because you believe many people watched it; however, if that's true (ie. the large number of viewers is genuine and meaningful), there should be secondary sources we can use rather than relying on a single twitter post for huge swaths of the article. I am particularly concerned about the WP:DUE issues; his stance on vaccines has massive amounts of coverage, to the point where it's reasonable to say it is the primary focus of most coverage about his campaign, and our article needs to reflect the weight of that coverage. We can't weigh other things equally to that unless hey have comparable amounts of coverage from secondary sources, which, at the moment, they clearly don't. --Aquillion (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I summarized his point, then Woko had me take it down because it was not direct quotes. Then I directly quoted and provided secondary sources from the defense professionals who RFK mentioned to prove that RFK's claims were not frivolous, and now it is all down.

If the goal here is to share all of the candidates views, we are missing the mark. Either way, being told to do a time-intensive thing just so it can be reverted later is odious. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The goal is not to "share all of the candidates views." [sic] Wikipedia's job, per WP:NPOV is to create an article that describes fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. That can certainly include some self-published material where it complies with Wikipedia policies, but we don't stretch our policies or edit with the goal of filling out any politician's platform. There are many politicians who prattle on about things that get little public attention, and thus, those particular things would be WP:UNDUE for inclusion. And I sincerely apologize that you took time to do something only to have it reverted, but anyone who spends any amount of time editing knows that feeling. That time is not wasted however, as it is part of the WP:BRD process that can ultimately lead to change in the long term even if it does not in the short. Cheers and happy weekend to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Sure, and including only a section on health policies, which is what we had before I got here, is not 'fair and proportional' coverage, even if we restrict access to his commentary in dozens of interviews on Youtube, Twitter, and Apple Podcasts because for some reason they are 'not reliable'.

'There are many politicians who prattle on about things that get little public attention, and thus, those particular things would be WP:UNDUE for inclusion.'

Sure, and Energy Policy, 'The Environment', 'US-China Relations', and 'National Unity' are all topics that are fairly important and due for inclusion.

Self-published content on Twitter or his campaign website should be included, as what is on his campaign website are his official views as a presidential candidate, and what he said in his Twitter speech reached millions and consists of direct statements of his own positions.

Per Wikipedia policy "The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about themself."

Again, I included these statements, briefly and paraphrased, and they were removed. I included them again, in lengthy direct quotes with time stamps, and they were removed. This is not fair and proportional coverage. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You make valid points, but I have a few small quibbles. Two are summed up in points 1 and 3 at WP:ABOUTSELF: namely that such self-published material should not be unduly self-serving, nor concern events unrelated to the publisher. To me, much of the information would run afoul of these tenets. I would urge you to reread WP:DUE; importance does not determine whether something meets the criteria. That's not how we do things, since "importance" is an inherently subjective standard that we cannot really gauge with any objective reference. And perhaps this isn't fair and proportionate coverage! Wikipedia has chosen to limit itself in certain ways. When discussing current events, reliable sources will often have notable gaps or leanings in coverage. We can't hope to get everything right in the first instance, but we hope to do here is get things right in the longer sweep. Hope I am not rambling too much. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I would argue 'aboutself' does not apply here the way I think you are saying it does.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, so let me express what I think you're saying with a hypothetical:

"You cannot use Kennedy's statements on the origin of the Russo-Ukrainian war from a primary source, because those statements concern both Kennedy, and third parties (Russia, Ukraine, USA)"

I would argue that Kennedy's position on the Russo-Ukrainian war is a statement on what his position is, and what his policy would be, and that rather than looking at it as a statement about Russia or Ukraine, it is essentially a statement about Kennedy and the Kennedy campaign. Great care should be taken when writing the passage to express this.

Just as when he speaks on his opinions on nuclear power, he is sharing his opinions, not giving a fact on nuclear power generation. I believe that a direct quote on one of these topics, attributed to Kennedy with appropriate citation, is sufficient to make the statement:

Kennedy said X about Y.

"When discussing current events, reliable sources will often have notable gaps or leanings in coverage."

Sure, and what I am saying is we should try to close those gaps and avoid giving in to bias by including reliable primary sources where appropriate. New York Times does not like the guy. American Conservative, Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Naked Capitalism, Katie Halper Show, Tucker Carlson, Twitter, Carl Zha, Radio War Nerd, Seymour Hersh, etc etc etc all do.

Why? Because they have a view which runs counter to an establishment consensus which is ensconced in the establishment media. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Point 1: "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim"

A campaign website DOES try to make an attractive claim, so this is something to be wary of, but any political position is bound to have people who agree or disagree with it. Laying out a position repels and attracts people, and I don't think you can call simply stating a position 'unduly self serving' unless it is full of wp:puffery.

Point 3: "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source"

In this case we are talking about a political position, which inevitably will go beyond Kennedy to US Foreign Policy. Since Kennedy is a presidential candidate, positions relating to his hypothetical administration ARE directly related to Kennedy. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

We will just have to agree to disagree on these. When you have a consensus for your changes, go ahead and make them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the direct quotes were too long. But I think we should include some more information about his platform even if there are no secondary sources (yet). These should be short, but a sentence about what he says e.g. about China, or about energy politics surely isn't undue. Of course the focus should be on what is taken up by secondary sources, but leaving things out entirely is equally undue. And while tweets are indeed a poor source in general the same does not automatically apply to a two hour video that happens to be posted on twitter (that is what a lot of this is about, right?).

Also, can someone think of a better way to phrase "right-wing figures". It just sounds awkward here, especially "figures". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe "right-wing politicians and commentators"? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I would definitely call that an improvement. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree the direct quotes were too long, and for the record they only went up because Woko requested them, on the grounds that they were controversial statements so had to be directly attributed with time stamps.

I agree that a sentence or two about each of his most important stances, China, Russo-Ukraine, energy, US military abroad, national unity, climate change, and air/water quality would be in order. If the argument is "New York Times didn't write about this, so it hasn't been covered and can't go up" I think WP:Undo is being misused. He has large coverage on YouTube, Twitter, Podcasts, and other alternative media venues. There are also 'The Hill', 'Institute of Responsible Statecraft', and other sources that can be cited if we must, but it seems strange that we need to report someone else saying he said something, rather than just him or his campaign website saying something.

"And while tweets are indeed a poor source in general the same does not automatically apply to a two hour video that happens to be posted on twitter"

This is one of my core points. A two hour speech or interview by a presidential candidate should qualify as a reliable source, if the matter at hand is simply the candidate himself. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

BD2412, could you please share your insight if the above conversation was conducive to rules and conduct of contentious topics? Cheers! --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

What does BD2312 have to say about framing me as "white-washing a 'pro-disease' candidate" I wonder. Or alleging I am a sock puppet, or implying I am a paid media spokesperson? Surely all conducive to covering a contentious topic. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ergglebergglrflorg dunno ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Woko Sapien (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

School shootings

@Ergglebergglrflorg can you provide a timestamp for when he talks about the connection between school shootings and prescription drugs? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to do some dishes but it is my day off, let me grab the quote:

2:04:00 He begins responding to question on guns, discusses that incremental changes in regulating guns won't solve shootings, that he understands the heartbreak of gun violence because he lost two family members, that he thinks gun control has been taken out of his hands by the supreme court's interpretations of the Constitution and due to the polarized nature of the gun debate.

2:06:00 "I want to stop the school shootings, and if it comes down to protecting the schools the way we protect airlines, we will do that. I will look very closely at the role of psychiatric drugs in these events, and there are no good studies right now that should have been done years ago on these events. And there's good circumstantial evidence that those SSRIs, and Benzos, and other drugs are doing this. ...You have to look at almost all of these drugs, if you look at their manufacturers inserts they include a warning of homicidality and suicidality. And prior to the introduction of Prozac, we didn't see that in this country. There are other countries that have higher per capita guns than us...the one thing we have that they don't is a higher proportion of our children on psychiatric drugs"

Not a perfect transcription mind you, but there it is.

Did he say that psychiatric drugs should be studied? Yeah. Did he cite real warnings about homicidality and suicidality?

Yeah. Did he say prozac causes mass shootings? No, he said it should be studied and that there was circumstantial evidence that it COULD cause mass shootings. He then cited that other countries with lots of guns but less prescription meds for kids have lower shootings, which is speculation on a correlation, not a claim of an association, and can hardly qualify as misinformation. Unless hypothesizing about the causes of things is misinformation :P. I have heard people hypothesize that gun culture results in more mass shootings, that social alienation results in more mass shootings, that access to guns results in more mass shootings (the counter argument being that many nations have similar access to guns with less gun violence), they are all hypotheticals and are not misinformation, simply a person sharing their hypotheses about what causes a complex problem. https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1PlJQpmkngnGE

Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems awful close to dogwhistling a position while not explicitly saying it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, and if someone wants to include his actual quote along with the article I removed or add a bit of nuance to the article claiming he *did* explicitly say those things, I would have no problem with that.

I don't think that wanting to look at relationships between psychiatric drugs and gun violence is a dog whistle or misinformation. Check out this piece by the Telegraph: Antidepressants linked to murders and murderous thoughts (telegraph.co.uk)

I also don't think it is a fringe belief that psychiatric drugs can be overprescribed, it is original research and I won't cite it here to maintain the confidentiality of identity, but I have written about the overprescription of amphetamines starting in the WW2 era and continuing today.

I really just want some nuance, a guy isn't automatically a kook for saying that there may be a relationship between overprescription of psychiatric drugs and gun violence, and it should be investigated. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

What I am trying to get at is quotes shouldn't be taken out of context simply because a secondary source is the one removing context. If we want to include that secondary source, fine, but maybe we can include the primary source to provide context. This Rollingstone article describes Kennedy as a 'fringe' (49% favorability isn't so fringe, IMO, its slightly higher than Bidens, but I digress) candidate with 'crank beliefs', but it actually included more of what he said regarding gun violence.

From the article:

'

“I also am going to look very closely at the role of psychiatric drugs in these events,” Kennedy promised. “And there are no good studies right now. That that should have been done years ago on this issue, because there’s a tremendous circumstantial evidence [that] SSRIs and benzos and other drugs are doing this.” By his own admission, there is no data to corroborate such an effect, and it’s unclear what “circumstantial evidence” he was referring to.

' Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

One last comment, than I will digress and leave you alone.

Alliance for Human Research Protection has a publication entitled: 31 Prescription Drugs Linked to 387 Homicides – Alliance for Human Research Protection (ahrp.org) which in turn cites https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015337. This study has been reviewed by psychology news here: Several Medications Linked to Violent Acts | Psychiatric News (psychiatryonline.org)

So what do we have? A peer reviewed publication described by a reviewer as follows:

'“This seems to be a reasonably good study with a high number [of medications evaluated] and a lot of double-checking,” Paul Fink, M.D., an expert in the study of violent behavior and a past APA president, commented. “I can tell you that as a psychiatrist who has practiced for a long time, I was unaware that [varenicline and antidepressants] had been linked with violence toward others. . . . Psychiatrists and mental health professionals need to be aware of this association.”'

Is it correct? I don't know. Is hypothesizing that there is a relationship misinformation? Is arguing that we should study it heavier misinformation? Absolutely not. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously none of these can be included in this article as they are original research, but if we're going to make a claim that RFK Jr. is promoting medical misinformation by suggesting a relationship between violence and Prozac, and we have peer reviewed publications also making this claim, are we:

1) Being fair to the candidate

2) Accurately sharing multiple perspectives of truth, as required by Wikipedia policy

3) Being responsible and scientific citizens?

I would argue no, to all three Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You should read WP:FRINGE. When we call something fringe, We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support. Someone saying "there are no good studies right now," implicates our FRINGE policy because it indicates little or no scientific support. However we discuss the issue, it needs to be inline with WP:FRINGE. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think bringing up 'Fringe' is a good point, however surely there is a difference between a statement of truth (from Fringe: "Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources.") and a statement that "We should study X", particularly when there are reliable sources (Telegraph, Psychiatry Online) providing some credibility to the belief that 'X' should be studied?

I want to accurately describe his position, not lambast his position simply because some secondary sources do. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also argue that while there isn't strong scientific support for the claim that SSRIs cause violence, there IS middling-to-strong scientific support that the relationship between SSRI's and violence should be studied:

1) Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Violent Crime: A Cohort Study - PubMed (nih.gov) (Conclusion states that the relationship varied between age groups and should be studied more)

2) The role of alcohol and drugs in triggering criminal violence: a case-crossover study* - PubMed (nih.gov) (Conclusion states that benzodiazopines did not increase violence, but that further studies needed)

3) Psychotropic drugs and homicide: A prospective cohort study from Finland - PMC (nih.gov) (some association between anti-depressants and increased violence found BUT a small one and there is a real possibility that those being given psychiatric drugs in the first place were more likely to commit violence.) To quote from the article:

What is the scientific evidence for an association between psychotropic drugs and homicidal behavior? Most of the available studies are case reports that only suggest a coincidental link between violence or homicide and antidepressants (2,3) or benzodiazepines (4), while very little is known about the association between antipsychotics and homicide. Two recent ecological studies found no support for a significant role of antidepressant use in lethal violence in the Netherlands or the U.S., although data on individual offenders were not available (5,6). Quantitative data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adverse event reporting system (7) imply that some antidepressants may be associated with a disproportionately high number of violent events (8). On the contrary, two small studies on antidepressant use among a special subgroup of homicide-suicide offenders found no evidence to support a causal link between antidepressants and homicidal behavior (9,10).

Citation 8 is worth looking at, that "some antidepressants may be associated with a disproportionately high number of violent events"

Fringe? Maybe, but a lot of mainstream science IS asking the same question the candidate is, however I would agree that the candidate is pre-disposed to think that SSRIs ARE responsible for increased homicidallity and that that is not the consensus so far, even if there are some studies which lend credence to his hypothesis. Ergglebergglrflorg (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The next sentence is If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. The threshold for application of the policy isn't the type of claim about the FRINGE theory he is making ("We should study X" or "X is true"), it's that there is a discussion of a theory not broadly supported by scholarship. The policy is triggered by the mention of X; in this case, the mention of a relationship between prescription drugs and mass shootings that reliable and independent sources do not appear to broadly support.

If it is mentioned, then we can only use independent reliable sources, the sources need to discuss the theory's relationship to the topic, and we should mention in the text what the independent reliable sources say about the veracity of the FRINGE content. It's not a bar on inclusion of content entirely (unless WP:UNDUE or another policy is violated), it's content guidelines to help achieve a neutral point of view, prevent original research, and ensure verifiability. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that summary. In light of this I agree with your removal. Reliable source or not, when we know (and have proof) that it's not accurate it does not belong in the article. What he said (I didn't look at the video, but I'm taking your word for that) was misrepresented by the Independent. Of course we could debate about what he implied or meant all day. But since that is not what the Independent said it doesn't matter for the decision on inclusion. I propose leaving out what he said about school shootings until we find a better secondary source and use the Independent article only for the gun control statement. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I have put the information back in (including direct quotes) using a better source. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Medicare for All

Rfk Jr supports mEDICARE FOR ALL but public option likelier and better and from that towards medicare for all. https://youtube.com/2MOv8LlD2J8 31:52-33:00 109.240.9.154 (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing that link used to point to a video that has since been taken down for violating youtube's policies against misinformation?[1] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2MOv8LlD2J8 109.240.71.56 (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That second link worked. Thanks! It was a different video that was taken down. But in my opinion his answer is not usable as support for the claim that he supports medicare for all. He says that if it were up to him the US would have medicare for all. But, his answer is all over the place and he more or less contradicts that immediately afterwards when he says that he wants people to have a choice. Maybe it's due to the nature of the live interview and he would be clearer (not to mention more coherent) in a prepared speech. But I would expect a presidential candidate to have a clear answer to this as a talking point. Right now it looks more like he wants to signal to the left that he is for medicare for all while assuring everyone else that it's not gonna happen. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The very obscure self-published YouTube video link

Hello.

The link to an extremely obscure YouTube video published by a private citizen, and that barely have any views by YouTube standards seems very inappropriate/unreliable, but has still been added over and over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr._2024_presidential_campaign&diff=1162022449&oldid=1162021322

I removed it again, and kept the "New Yorker" reference, but do not think that a a throwaway very brief unproven opinion text segment in the other article about "flirting with HIV/AIDS denial" seems nearly strong (verified and elaborate) enough to include for a statement of apparent verified fact. David A (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Understood, hence the additional source of the book review. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Kennedy's hatred of LGBT people

Is there a possible way to get a better analysis here in terms of how to describe Kennedy's hatred of LGBT people? As of right now, he's directly quoted once in depth and once briefly. It's a particular problem given the extreme nature of the lengthy quote (as in that AIDS victims have deserved to die since they "were people who were part of a gay lifestyle where they were burning the candle at both ends"), but it seems to be not be as serious of an issue as it might otherwise be. I think that following up Kennedy's quote with direct criticism mitigates concerns that the text is simply pushing unencyclopedic hatred. The "gay lifestyle" pejorative presents a dilemma, however. I'm not exactly sure here.

Kennedy's articulation of the LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory is only described in encyclopedic language rather than quoted directly. Nonetheless, his use of the "sexual dysphoria" pejorative is a tricky matter. Right now, as of this moment, his views are just referenced without any specific condemnation or such. I'm not exactly sure here either.

Kennedy's use of the disturbingly common neo-Nazi type slur "biological males" to refer to transgender people is something that I very much know isn't right for the article. Of course, the other two viewpoints that I just mentioned are also neo-Nazi type notions, but they're not described in a way involving the same language. Analogously, I think that the article on George Wallace wouldn't necessarily have to quote him about "the niggers" inside the body text precisely while it can simply refer to his doctrines in a detached way. I don't think that, in the larger context of his bigotry really, Kennedy's hang-ups about ending discrimination in sports merits comment. In terms of reliable sources, Kennedy's claims about LGBT chemical conspiracies have gotten significant news media attention from a lot of publications (as one can currently see in this page as well as the page dedicated to the theory itself). I've only seen a single news agency, that being the Pennsylvania publication, actually referring to him saying anything at all about sports.

Thoughts? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Here are two sources for the sports comments: https://www.newsweek.com/biden-challenger-rfk-jr-aligns-gop-key-culture-war-issue-1797571, https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/04/30/robert-f-kennedy-jr-smerconish-transgender-athletes-smr-intv-vpx.cnn. I think mentioning it in a sentence makes sense. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

When was that "biological male is a slur" decided and made public? If the publication is relatively new, you cannot expect everybody (let alone Kennedy, who is obviously not very well informed about things in general) to have heard of it, and comparing someone with a Nazi for using the wording is overkill. Maybe you should tone down your rhetoric a bit. After all, you have the facts on your side. Leave the "everybody who disagrees with me is Hitler" reasoning to people like Kennedy, who needs to overcome the hurdle of having the facts against him on many subjects. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that I also think that using accusations of Nazism and full-blown hatred seem extremely exaggerated and inappropriate/offensive in this case. David A (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTCENSORED particularly where it says, Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia policy and by insisting on cleansing the article of words and phrases you deem offensive, you are violating it.

@Random person no 362478479: you, also, should read WP:NOTCENSORED as you seem to be unaware of it as evidenced by this edit summary: "stop introducing discriminatory language" which refers to me quoting Kennedy saying "biological males". This is policy, and you and CoffeeWithMarkets need to start respecting it. Miner Editor (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of it. However your change did not add any information. And there is no need to quote the bigoted language to demonstrate his bigotry. But ultimately the more important issue was your edit warring. I think it was seven reverts within 24h? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I was reverting policy violations by CoffeeWithMarkets, such as this Kennedy has stated that he opposes ending the discrimination against transgender people in American sports" which the source does not support. What he actually said was he was against people participating in women’s sports who are biologically male. You actually re-inserted the text that is in violation of policy as well. He simply never said such a thing, and that sentence is a BLP violation and is synthesis and has got to go. Miner Editor (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, so you would say that it is not an acceptable paraphrase? The synthesis consisting in the implicit assumption that this is a form of discrimination, I assume? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think if we use the quote we should point out that he used language that is considered discriminatory by many and is a standard phrase of right-wing rhetoric. Maybe for the moment we could simply say that he is against trans-women participating in women's sport. I think that could serve as a compromise until we have a stable consensus. What do you think @Miner Editor? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That being said, if you can gain consensus for your change, so be it. But it needs to be established here on the talk page first. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It is being discussed now. I am holding off on reverting yours an CoffeeWithMarkets BLP violation to discuss it with you now. Miner Editor (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

First of all, the lying, editing warring, and general pattern of extremely unethical behavior by Miner Editor is rather disconcerting to where I'd like to just pretend that it all didn't happen and that said individual doesn't exist. If they make things worse, I see no option other than some kind of imposed consequence on them to get them to clean up their act. Regardless, "Kennedy has stated that he is against transgender women participating in sports with cisgender women" is an objectively factually correct statement that can be sourced to CNN.com and Newsweek.com given the links provided above. I can't see any particular justification for why either a)those links wouldn't work as reliable sources or b)that wording has to be changed. I'm not saying that nothing else would work, of course, but if it's already in encyclopedic language then nothing more is needed there.

It seems rather blindly obvious to me that it's better for an Wikipedia article about politician John Q. Public to have the body text read something like "Public has stated that he opposes expanding voting rights access" rather than "According to Public, 'niggers aren't smart enough for the ballot'." It's more than just a matter of using slurs verbatim being a problem. It's that Wikipedia is an objective encyclopedia, and preventing the hardline opinions of an extremist in a manipulative way that makes it come across as if his own words are the factual voice of an authority doesn't work. This is simple.

I still think that we need to present Kennedy's view about AIDS patients deserving to die due to their supposed immorality in a better way, but that's a different issue as regards discrimination r.e. sports and also the LGBT chemicals conspiracy. As far as the concern trolling that I'm seeing about labeling Nazi talk 'Nazi talk'... well, I'm not sure what to say, but normal politicians in a normal country under normal circumstances wouldn't advocate for the literal deaths of literal people who're completely innocent just out of ideology. I wouldn't consider the likes of wishing death upon AIDS victims or similar positions in terms of connection to reality such as denying the Holocaust or proclaiming the flatness of the Earth to be something we should pretend has some merit to it in the name of 'balance'. Seriously.

I genuinely couldn't care less that the mainstream view on Wikipedia and elsewhere is that, say, a dentist with years of experience doing surgery on teeth versus a random woman plucked off of the street who just removed a molar using a string attached to a doorknob both have equally valid opinions deserving equal respect and equal treatment. Reality doesn't work that way. It just doesn't. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a work of scholarship, and we should not be afraid of using scholarly language. That you insist that "biological male" is Nazi talk, and that the delicate eyes of our readership need to be protecte from it, is strange, because it's how scholars speak https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C34&q=%22biological+male%22&btnG= I will continue to question your competence to edit Wikipedia. Miner Editor (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Biological males" seems to violate WP:MOS. Specifically, Use gendered words only if they reflect the person's latest self-identification as reported in recent sources. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Not in this case. I was not using Wikivoice. I was directly quoting Kennedy. Also, your cite addresses usage pertaining to an individual. It does not apply in this case, where Kennedy is referring to a class of people. Miner Editor (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see why insulting a group of people as 'the niggers', 'the kikes', 'the faggots', 'the biological males', 'the retards', et cetera (even if this is heard in the 2023-era political-ish speak you get from certain celebrities constantly) is somehow as any different than charging a specific person with being 'a nigger', 'a faggot', 'a biological male', 'a retard', and so on.

And, yes, it can be scientifically accurate-ish in a technical way to possibly refer to somebody using really careful language like 'their mental state conveys what I believe to be retardation', sure, but that doesn't equate to 'she's such a retard'. That's a clear-cut situation of dehumanization. Lets be serious. Same thing for calling a woman "a man" or rubbing it even in harder by not even recognizing them as being a person at all by saying "a biological male" in order to present them as a dehumanized object category. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

That said, I did decide to drop the stick and leave a paraphrased version of Kennedy's words in the article. But if you wan to pick it up again, by all means, be my guest. Miner Editor (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I find this notion held by you and some others here that dancing on the graves of AIDS patients while also claiming that evil conspiracies are poisoning people's water is somehow a standard political platform held by normal, reasonable people based on normal, reasonable thinking to be rather maddening, personally. The screaming of 2 and 2 equaling 5 isn't true and shouldn't be presented as such no matter how many people yell that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Now they say I am defending grave dancing. They are completely unfit to edit Wikipedia. I will not be addressing anything further that they say except perhaps at ANI. Miner Editor (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I genuinely and sincerely can't comprehend how you can read the text Kennedy's assertion that AIDS victims who have died from the disease in the U.S. "were people who were part of a gay lifestyle where they were burning the candle at both ends" and find nothing objectionable about that whatsoever. You honestly seem to be completely unfit to edit Wikipedia, to the degree that your disconnection from reality dumbfounds me, and your psychological projection is a key proof of that. Please do something to better yourself. I don't want you to get any kind of censoring. I want you to understand things better. Have you actually read any of the articles used as sources in this particular page? The ones detailing how factually wrong and scientifically bonkers Kennedy's beliefs are? I recommend doing so. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I said I was going to ignore you, and I will... after this. I in NO WAY EVER addressed Kennedy's position on AIDS, or his "candle" thing. You should strike you slurs about how I am defending grave dancing, or "can't comprehend" a conversation I never participated in. You are WAY out of line at this point. Miner Editor (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I've truly had enough your lying, particularly your psychological projection, and I'm sincerely worried about both the articles that you've edited before as well as what you'll edit after this one; so, well, I'll just repeat that I recommend you look over the articles presently cited in this article. That's not an insult. It's an actual recommendation. There's a lot here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Now they're calling me a liar. Where did I lie? Please defend your slur, strike, or enjoy your visit to ANI. I demand satisfaction. Miner Editor (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Please check the truth or otherwise of such accusations before making them. I cannot find any place where Miner Editor commented on Kennedy's position on AIDS, and I cannot find any place where the user says that dancing on the graves of AIDS patients while also claiming that evil conspiracies are poisoning people's water is somehow a standard political platform held by normal, reasonable people.

Admitting mistakes does not weaken your position, it strengthens it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, look: are there any points to be actually made to respond to what I said about improving this article? Is the current state of the wording for that one section acceptable? Maybe not? Maybe it is?

I really, seriously aren't interested in pretending that I'm a potted plant to be screamed at and vented at in terms of abuse and harassment. I don't have anything to do with your hurt feelings. I hope that you feel better at some point. Okay? I want this article to be better. Please stop with all of this. It's genuinely painful to see. While I know that the right thing to do would be to go through the edits made by Miner Editor across multiple articles in order to check for various issues, I'd rather just leave all of this alone. I can't put into words how little interest I have in a 4chan / Reddit style venting match despite the fact that apparently ME has wanted that from the beginning. I just want to improve these articles. That's it. Sounds like a plan to me.

Again, I couldn't care less about the edit warring and flame war that you want to fight, ME. Whatever problem that you've had with me from the beginning is on you. I just couldn't care less. All I want is to improve the article. If anyone at all here has any specific notion of how to do that in terms of specific textual changes, then I'd love to hear that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

That is not how this works. You cannot accuse people of lying and refuse to either back it up or retract it. Anybody who reads this page can see that it is not other people who need to refrain from venting. But at least you seem to have calmed down now. Baby steps.

The rewording "transgender women" is a good way to resolve this. It neither insults anyone nor misrepresents Kennedy's statement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Did Kennedy actually use the words 'cisgender women'? The text quotes him as stating this so it should be a direct quote. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

More problematic, I think, is changing his phrase "biological males" to "transgender women". They are by no means synonyms. This is a BLP violation. Miner Editor (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

They are not synonymous, but in this context "biological males" is used as an anti-trans phrase for "transgender women". So in effect we downplay the offensiveness of his comments. As I wrote below I would be perfectly OK with using the direct quote. But that would require us to address the wording. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a HUGE difference between wanting to include quotes and endorsing those quotes. I see no-one here defending RFK Jr.'s position or statements in any way. Now I have to admit that I originally thought that @Miner Editor wanted to introduce "biological male" in wikivoice (probably because of a typo early on where the closing quotation mark was missing). But that is clearly not the case. That was a misunderstanding on my side and I apologize for that (I honestly can't remember whether I realized this before or after I reverted an edit). Now I completely agree that Wikipedia is not and should not be censored. But when we quote offensive language we should not do it without context/analysis; just like we don't mention his claims about vaccines without pointing out that it is a conspiracy theory. I see two options. First, we can keep the current neutrally worded "Kennedy has stated that he is against transgender women participating in sports with cisgender women." The second option is to use Miner Editor's text "Kennedy has stated that he is 'against people participating in women’s sports who are biologically male'" but include a discussion of the wording pointing out that "biologically male" is considered offensive by many and is the preferred term of right-wing and other anti-trans commentators. Which of these to use depends, in my opinion, completely on how important his position on this issue is and therefore how much space we should dedicate on it. Personally I think that both options are fine at this point. Now to Kennedy's statement that AIDS victims "were people who were part of a gay lifestyle where they were burning the candle at both ends". In my opinion we should use the quote because it is this specific statement that was criticized. I would also like to point out that this statement does not mean that these people deserved to die (even though that may be an implicature here). Instead it means that their deaths were the result of their lifestyle choices. Don't get me wrong, that is still both factually false and highly offensive. But "they deserve it" is a step beyond "it's their own fault". Please let's all assume good faith and try to work constructively on this article. There are enough bad faith actors trying to push POV edits, let's not sling insults and allegations just because someone disagrees with how to present information. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

...include a discussion of the wording pointing out that "biologically male" is considered offensive by many and is the preferred term of right-wing and other anti-trans commentators. Only if its sourced, and describes Kennedy's usage in particular. Because it's also the preferred term of scientists (as demonstrated by my Google Scholar quote above). Miner Editor (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Context matters. In this context "biologically male" is used in order to call women "male". And that is most definitely anti-trans. And unless Kennedy is completely ignorant he did not chose the favorite phrase of right-wing anti-trans hate by accident. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The words "Kennedy has stated..." would indicate a direct quote, which is what this should be. A journalism major here, so am aware of being accurate in direct quotes, "stated", etc. in Wikipedia's voice. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will fight you if you want to replace "stated" with another verb. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It still would indicate a direct quote. What was Kennedy's actual quote in this instance? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I meant replace it with a verb that does not indicate a direct quote. Here's a video with his comment: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/04/30/robert-f-kennedy-jr-smerconish-transgender-athletes-smr-intv-vpx.cnn -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

For BLPs in general, and BLPs of relatively high-profile political candidates in particular, I like to see impeccable sourcing. If the issue of him using the phrase "biological male" instead of more considerate wording is such a big deal that it requires coverage in Wikipedia, there should be at least one good source to support it. Miner Editor (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking for sources that actually analyze his statement. So far I have only found a handful of reliable sources that merely report what he said and a lot of transphobic right-wing sources praising him. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"...participating in women's sports" seems to work per Kennedy's quote. Thanks for the link. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Wording

I honestly do not understand the issue with the current paraphrase. He answered a question about "trans sports participation" and even though he says "biologically male" I see no way to interpret him as speaking about anyone else than transgender women. Every other reading can be ruled out by the context. The fact that he chose to use the phrase transphobic right wing commentators and politicians like to use when referring to transgender women to imply that they're really men does not mean that he was talking about anything else. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

OK this comment of his has convinced me he uses the terms as synonyms, and that we can do so as well with integrity: https:// youtu.be/eh8xhki7myw?t=63 I'm removing the template. Miner Editor (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Just one clarification to your original answer. I am not categorically against quoting (potentially) offensive/problematic language. In many cases it is not just acceptable, but necessary. That's a point where I disagree with CoffeeWithMarkets. I merely oppose doing it without giving any kind of analysis or context. Just like I would object to using a quote endorsing a conspiracy theory without pointing out that it is a conspiracy theory. And it is my understanding that this also Wikipedia policy/practice. In some ways I would even prefer quoting him while giving context. The reason is that I believe that while a lot of people who take part in it do so in bad faith the discussion about transgender athletes is necessary. And as someone who has not really looked into it I don't know on what side I would come down if I had to decide. So in my opinion it is not necessarily transphobic to be opposed to the inclusion of transgender athletes in women's sports. The language used by Kennedy on the other hand is transphobic. And I am sure he knows who he appeals to by using it and does so deliberately. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable or not? Useful or not?

Any opinions on the reliability of The Asset? From their About Us page: "Asset Publishing and Research Ltd is an integrated multi-media company that connects access to the leading financial decision makers with curated content deploying new media, print, events and big data." It is Hong Kong based and I found almost no information about it. I also found no information about editorial policy. Neither could I find anything useful about the founder and editor-in-chief Daniel Yu. Assuming there are no insurmountable issues with The Asset would the article US, China should compete on economic terms, not military – RFK Jr be useful here? It was written by the editor-in-chief Yu and the content seems to be taken from his Twitter conversation with Musk. It includes no analysis or commentary, so it is basically a primary source. I think having his position on this would enhance the article, but I am on the fence about the source and don't like the lack of analysis. Opinions? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am normally loathe to use sources that require registration unless there is a work-around (e.g. viewing an archived version). They say that it's free, but I stopped right there. I did try to view it using archive.is which normally can get around any registration requirement, but not in this case... their site is wise to that work-around. Practically all Wikipedia sources can be archived using archive.is so you don't need to register or pay, but not this one. And please don't misunderstand... I won't object to its use on those grounds, I just won't normally support or suggest the use of such sources. Miner Editor (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize that a registration is required. I can access it without registration. Probably the work of one of the multiple privacy add-ons I have installed in my browser. Given that I was already skeptical, as far as I am concerned that seals it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, strike that. I can access it now, without registration. My apologies for the confusion! Miner Editor (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

OK I figured it out. My confusion lied in that the article cannot be archived, as shown here: https://archive.is/anxqH It can be viewed by anyone, but not archived. Miner Editor (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The NewsNation town hall

I think that we should mention Kennedy's recent NewsNation town hall in this page, as it certainly seems to be noteworthy.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-jr-newsnation-town-hall/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLW9s6NpS7w

Among other things, Kennedy also clarified there that he is definitely not against vaccines. He just thinks that the FDA is lying about safety-testing them properly. David A (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

If it gets coverage by a source other than newsnation itself, maybe. As for the "I'm not an antivaxx!", well, "he would say that, wouldn't he? Zaathras (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

He just thinks that the FDA is lying about safety-testing them properly In other words, he is saying "I am a conspiracy theorist". --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and misinformation are integral to RFK Jr. and his campaign.

Conspiracy theories and misinformation are integral to RFK Jr. and his campaign. Unclear why an editor removed a perfectly good well-sourced edit saying so. M.boli (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Devoting one entire paragraph (out of two) in the lead just to his anti vax work in an article dedicated not to himself but his campaign is obviously WP:UNDUE. Miner Editor (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Saying the article is dedicated not to himself but his campaign is passingly strange. The edit you reverted contained two sources listing conspiracy theories that RFK Jr. is promulgating during his campaign. Also note that RFK Jr. is the goods being sold by the campaign. Declining to identify of RFK Jr. as chair of Childrens Health Defense and a promulgator of misinformation and conspiracy also seems odd. -- M.boli (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought I was fairly clear that my objection was based on WP:UNDUE weight, not issues of factuality. But I'll re-iterate: just because a thing is sourced does not mean it deserves a new paragraph in the lead. Miner Editor (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Both your sources appear to be analysis. Analysis even in reliable sources is only reliable if the author is an expert, unusually someone with a body of literature on the topic published in peer-reviewed papers. This policy is especially important for BLPs.

While RFK Jr. has promoted conspiracy theories, it is doubtful whether his campaign is based on them, as the second analysis says. Other analysts say is down-playing them in order to gain greater support. That's where expert opinion would be useful. TFD (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Does he have a stump speech? If so, examination of what sources report as being in it, would likely point to whether his campaign is based on them or not. Mathglot (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2023

Change “anti-vaccine activist” to “vaccine safety activist” 2601:245:C301:25F0:34AB:6817:C4EF:165 (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You would need to show that reliable sources regularly use this terminology. Until then, this request will not be fulfilled. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding "fifty percent" sentence

About fifty percent of the total funds raised by July 2023 were contributed by Timothy Mellon, a longtime Republican mega-donor and Trump supporter.

Source says no such thing. ​ Miner Editor (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

From NBC News:

Wealthy businessman Timothy Mellon of Wyoming donated $5 million to the super PAC, American Values 2024, during the first six months of the year, a report filed Monday with the Federal Election Commission showed. His check represents the majority of the $9.8 million raised by the group in the first half of 2023.

––FormalDude (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Raised "by the group". Not raised for RFK Jr's entire campaign. You need to revert your addition. Miner Editor (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case your version is not correct either. I thought "the group" referred to the campaign, but I found another source that makes it clear it's the super PAC. Resolved with this edit. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You didn't need to find another source, the source you cited was fine and was perfectly clear, it was your interpretation of it which was the problem. Thanks, though. Miner Editor (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Miner Editor seems to make sense here. David A (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2023

It says rfk's family's reaction has been overwhelmingly negative which is not true, he was one of eleven children he has a big family most of which support him. 2603:6011:AF06:AD00:5440:700C:83D:4218 (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done You seem to be referring to the lead. Have you read the Opposition_from_the_Kennedy_family section? There it is made clear that although the family supports him personally, they are indeed overwhelmingly negative towards his campaign (the family have been vehement Biden supporters and friends since well before this campaign). It's well-sourced. Miner Editor (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)