Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign into Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and leaving behind a redirect. I think that the content in the campaign can easily be explained within the biographical article for the foreseeable future, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the candidate’s main article. It is not clear whether the campaign will obtain enough note down the road to warrant its own article, but it is not useful to have a stubby article at this moment. I am not opposed to a future spinning-off/re-creation of the campaign article if there later becomes sufficiently more to write about the campaign, but for now I believe the stubby-article on the campaign serves no use and there is not enough to expand the article beyond what is now contained in it. I am in the process of making similar requests for some other 2024 campaign articles.

The campaign article’s "Political positions" section can be merged with the main article’s "political views" section, while the campaign would have its own section.

SecretName101 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Changing wording to "stubby" from "stub" SecretName101 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support this would follow similar precedents set by Michael Bennet 2020 presidential campaign, John Hickenlooper 2020 presidential campaign, and Tim Ryan 2020 presidential campaign with the option of de-merging the article should it become necessary later down the road. --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both articles are substantial and describing the other one as a stub is odd (see WP:STUB, the rater tool categorises it as a B-class article and I agree with that algorythmic assessment). Seems like a legitimate content fork i.e. a WP:SPINOFF. Both articles are inevitably like to grow in size and so WP:SIZERULE is also relevant. CT55555(talk) 16:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The content in the campaign article on the campaign itself is indeed short enough to be a stub. That article’s length is inflated by a section on political stances duplicative in scope of an existing section of Kennedy’s primary article. the content in this article indeed is essentially a stub SecretName101 (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

What a stub is is clearly defined at WP:STUB. It relates to length and completeness. I find the labelling of this article a stub to be at odds with that definition, but probably won't labour that point further here, I think people can read it and reach their own conclusions. CT55555(talk) 18:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and when you remove the section which duplicates the political stance section in his main article, and the support section duplicative of the endorsements page, this is indeed a true and blue stub. Very little info other than “Kennedy has a campaign” SecretName101 (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Absent massive amounts of early significant coverage of the campaign itself, I'm likely to support the same for all campaign articles. When merging, the lengthy content cited only to the Twitter conversation does not need to come over. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Merging at this stage is inconsistent with other declared candidates who are returning comparable or even lower numbers in the polls relative to party front runners (see Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign). Moreover, coverage of RFKJ's campaign has increased significantly in just the last week, suggesting a trend in that direction. -- Kalem014 (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

“Suggesting a trend” is a WP:crystal ball statement. And the first part is a WP:Otherstuff rationale. In an of itself, there is not enough notable/substantial aspects or implications unique to Kennedy’s campaign for it to yet require its own article separate from Kennedy’s primary article. SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I refer to prior vs. current coverage, to suggest the current trend, which is not WP:CrystalBall. Other editors support on questions around whether coverage has been "significant" enough. I merely highlight the fact that coverage has demonstrably gained significance in recent days/weeks.

Also, if Michael Bennet 2020 presidential campaign, John Hickenlooper 2020 presidential campaign, and Tim Ryan 2020 presidential campaign are not deemed WP:OtherStuff in supporting deletion, then similarly Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign should not be deemed other stuff in opposition. Otherwise, all the aforementioned articles can be disregarded. Thanks! -- Kalem014 (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Ron DeSantis is an improper article to suggest is wholly parallel. a look alone at that article would tell you there is far more substantive and notable information about that campaign than Kennedy’s. That is why it is a unhelpful OtherStuff argument SecretName101 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think WP:CRYSTAL precludes article content. I don't think it precludes making logical arguments about the future in talk page discussion. CT55555(talk) 18:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Crystal ball is also against creating an article WP:toosoon on speculation that an dedicated article may someday eventually be warranted SecretName101 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on WP:SPINOFF grounds. I'll echo the concern that both this article and the campaign article are likely to grow in size as the election season progresses. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• @HappyWanderer15 specificity on how you believe those grounds apply? SecretName101 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think it is inevitable that as a presidential candidate with 20% support and a large online following, this article will become a dumping ground for all manner of recent polls, events, comments, positions, etc. I witnessed the same happen with the Bernie Sanders article in 2016, and supported spinoff articles for both the campaign and his political positions for the same reason. It's important to keep the main article readable, and to leave the fine details elsewhere for those who would like a deeper dive. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose details about his campaign will overwhelm this article and create UNDUE emphasis on him as a political candidate.DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Is it normal for a politician in an active campaign to have a separate campaign article? I would think it is common, but just thought I would ask. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Jtbobwaysf If you look at 2020, not all of the Dem candidates (even some US Senators, congressmen, and governors) still have articles dedicated to their campaigns. Some were created WP:toosoon and subsequently merged per similar rationale.

Weak support per comments above. I see the logic here of toosoon and the article has too much about his political positions, looks more like an advert. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• This time I am trying to tackle the problem of creating unwarranted dedicated articles too soon at an early-stage, rather than leave them to linger. SecretName101 (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support - keeping two articles with overlapping content synced is a PITA. If/when his campaign continues THEN create the article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Do you support merging all candidate campaign pages for a given election and just maintaining the main election and individual biographical pages? If not, how do we distinguish this campaign and not that campaign? What qualifies as a "continuing" campaign, and how to avoid bias toward the incumbent in any election? 208.127.72.121 (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  @208.127.72.121 I think you are arguing a slippery slope. This is distinguished because its important content entirely overlaps with what can be reasonably contained in the main article. Some other campaign articles have a substantial enough amount of important content to warrant separation. SecretName101 (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, of course not, and I'm surprised anyone has supported this. All major American presidential candidates have campaign pages, that's pretty much a given, which include the history of the campaign, its supporters, and the other regular features of these pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  As a precedent, Tulsi Gabbard has a merged bio with campaign info. Cocoablini (talk). 17:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Cocoablini quite a few other 2020 Dem primary candidates too. Including some governors, senators, and congressmen. SecretName101 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  SecretName101, please consider withdrawing all of these good faith nominations. You've nominated some but not all 2024 U.S. presidential candidate's campaign pages, thus asking Wikipedians to sanction the appearance of pick-and-choose bias in Wikipedia's voice. You say your criteria is "stub", but this and other pages are well-sourced, not stubs, and are being edited daily. The nominations now give an appearance-of-bias towards pre-selected 2024 U.S. major party presidential candidates, so withdrawing seems a viable option. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn Not sure how you can see the appearance of bias in the fact I did not nominate every last candidate. Do you think DeSantis, Biden, and Trump articles should have been nominated as well, because those three articles have obvious rationale for independent articles as those campaigns cannot be summarized within the main article of those candidates.. I nominated those that I felt arguably do not warrant a solo article at this moment. SecretName101 (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's more than enough information to support a separate article. Any merge into his bio would require the otherwise unnecessary removal of a significant amount of prose currently contained in the Campaign article in order to prevent undue weight issues. Miner Editor (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support can be covered in Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and doesn't need a separate article. If Kennedy starts getting within 10-15 points of Biden in polls this discussion can be had again. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• The nomination fails because the Kennedy campaign page is not a stub as required by the nomination. In addition, under your criteria DeSantis should be merged as well. This rational shows that merging some of the campaign pages and not others provokes this kind of response, and puts undue weight requirments in order to participate in Wikipedia's 2024 campaign collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Randy, not how things work.

  If a consensus arises to merge in the subsequent discussion, that doesn’t get undone by nitpicking a word in the original nominations rationale. SecretName101 (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  And you are incorrect to think that DeSantis’ article can be as easily merged as this. DeSantis offers immensely more comprehensive coverage of information that is justified to be included on Wikipedia. It cannot be merged. This can. SecretName101 (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

...there, arguably, is the bias. Good faith bias but still present. And no, it's not nitpicking a word, "stub" was your rationale for merging all of the pages you've nominated. The Kennedy campaign article is not a stub, it has fully sourced material being regularly edited. It seems to have survived the merge and this discussion should be closed as no consensus to merge, but so should all the other campaign pages nominated as stubs which are not stubs. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

No. That was not my rationale, and you darn well know that if you actually read. My rationale is that this can be sufficiently summarized within a section, and a solo article is not yet warranted. That is indeed latching on to a nitpick about one word to delegitimize the entire statement.

And it is not bias. When there is indeed substantive differences between situations, treating them differently is not bias. You know that as well. SecretName101 (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Have read the nomination again to check if I was reading it correctly, and yes, telling editors that this page and other fully sourced and active articles are somehow stubs when they are not stubs is a central theme in the merge nominations. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is standard practice for many candidates - I'm not saying it's required, rather that's there's precedent. There are other candidacies where we don't have these pages. In any event, with all due respect to WP:CRYSTALBALL, it's obvious that there's going to be growing coverage of this candidacy - no crystal ball needed. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, the campaign is an independently notable and well-sourced legal entity, and follows the precedents of numerous articles on similarly notable campaigns. It is also unfortunate to have multiple discussions on similar subjects likely to result in inconsistent outcomes. BD2412 T 20:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, suitable significant coverage, being met, merits an own article. Andre🚐 22:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Kennedy's campaign has received, and continues to draw, significant media coverage at a level that is above the norm for that of a "dark horse" candidate. Enough to merit a standalone article. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe it's too early to consider a merge and it's only fair to consider merging once the primary season starts or when the campaign has been suspended. --2601:249:8E00:420:B93B:A3A7:4E32:53B2 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is not about "fair" though. We don't need to create independent articles on every candidacy. This is a discussion as to whether this itself necessitates or justifies being spun off from its parent article. SecretName101 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

i agree Michael21107 (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

i agree Michael21107 (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Wait until the primaries begin or when he drops out. The article looks good enough to merit its own article in the meantime. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose There seems to be enough sources to merit its own article. Aneirinn (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The campaign is clearly notable, as there a huge numbers of reliable sources that discuss it. Mr. Kennedy is routinely included in every poll concerning the primary.XavierGreen (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is extremely notable and should remain, especially as the population of the United States has a more favourable view of Kennedy than of Trump or Biden. David A (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Favorability ratings of Kenney are beyond irrelevant as to whether there is need or justification for an independent article on this subject. SecretName101 (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Campaign articles are spun off when they are sufficiently long to justify a stand-alone article. If we did merge the two, the other article would become an increasingly lengthy section and at some point would have to be spun off. TFD (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your argument is essential "keep this article because it ''might'' be justified at a ''later'' time."

  There's no prejudice against re-creation if the subject needs to be spun-off later on.

  This is a lame argument I keep on seeing. SecretName101 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This is about the Person and the Person is not about one thing in their life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilleke (talk • contribs) 09:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Does every "one thing" in his life need a spun-off article now? Every biography is literally a compilation of things from people's lives SecretName101 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Does every "one thing" in his life need a spun-off article now? No CT55555(talk) 18:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No 2607:FEA8:E9DF:2D00:C960:B2DF:5831:BDCD (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a major presidential campaign, with high polling numbers. Wherever one stands on the conspiracy theorist himself, who has little chance of actually defeating Biden, this article certainly has relevance. It has also received a massive amount of coverage on its own, especially for its connections to the political right. PickleG13 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incredibly biased article.

The left-wing bias in the first paragraph of this page is absolutely ridiculous. Why is this allowed? 2001:56A:6FE9:B6C0:C4F2:258F:8540:2B58 (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by IP/new users frequently complain that Wikipedia is "biased" when it doesn't fit their personal worldview. The only thing this generates is eyerolls from experienced users, because they never actually address the sourcing regarding the claims in the first place. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

To speak to this, I would not accuse Wikipedia as biased. But the beginning of this particular article is surprisingly negative and one-sided. Wikipedia is better than this. 136.32.100.222 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Alex Jones is pretty negative too, and I think the negativity is well earned in both cases. Kennedy's anti-vax advocacy has really eclipsed his signficance as an environmental lawyer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"eclipsed his signficance as an environmental lawyer" He was not that significant as a lawyer anyway. If he was not famous for his support for pseudoscience, I doubt if he would qualify for a Wikipedia article. Dimadick (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Quite the exaggeration. His work on environmental issues was enough to get him almost named to Obama's cabinet as head of the EPA. The Waterkeeper Alliance is a very notable organization. It's fine not to like his vaccine activism, but it's totally wrong to say he would not otherwise be notable. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

His work quite arguably wasn't sufficient to warrant cabinet consideration. His name as a Kennedy family scion greatly helped that rumored consideration. Just like Hunter Biden wouldn't have likely been appointed VP of Amtrak if his dad was not a senator. SecretName101 (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Read the published articles he references. Stop getting upset with people’s opinions 67.213.245.74 (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Alex Jones has charges against him for spreading fake news. His is deserved; he broke the law. Buddyfire917 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. It reads like it was written by the DNC as part of their campaign to discredit RFK Jr. This borders on election tampering. Mitchelloverton2020 (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"Election tampering"? That's Trump's framing. It is nonsense. We reflect what WP:RS reflect. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC on use of terms in first sentence

The first sentence of this article contains the terms in which the article subject has "promoted xyz propaganda and abc conspiracy theories." Do we keep these terms or remove in this WP:BLP? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• This has been discussed a lot above in Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Editor's_voice_re:_"propaganda"/"conspiracy_theories" and Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#The_evidence_for_the_two_claims_in_the_first_sentence_are_too_weak. It seems the terms are controverisal and probalby shouldnt use wikivoice on a BLP in the first sentence as it results in WP:UNDUE weight. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Whatever the result of the close is, the consensus should be based on the views of established users only, as was done in other contentious topics like the Race and Intelligence RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ridiculous. The views of those outside of the cabal must be taken into account as well. Who is involved is not a reason to stonewall. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your "greatest" contribution to Wikipedia in your less than 1000 edits in 8 years of being on this website has been to be obnoxiously argue about Wikipedia being biased against Rupert Sheldrake. I really don't see why anyone should take your opinions on anything seriously. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you want to use the term "obnoxious," that is certainly an apt description for your incivility, personal attacks, and clear contempt for those who disagree with you. I will be sure to refer the matter to ANI if you continue to show a total lack of regard for basic courtesy here. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I would avoid the term "propaganda," which is perorative, and therefore violates Tone. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "the term is often a pejorative one tending to connote such things as the discredited atrocity stories and deceptively stated war aims of World Wars I and II, the operations of the Nazis’ Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, and the broken campaign promises of a thousand politicians."[1] I don't think that comparing people to Hitler is effective polemics and it certainly isn't good style for an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  So, my first thought exactly echoed yours. But then as I was writing it up, I realized ... how does that critique not also apply to "conspiracy theories"? "Conspiracy theory" is a pejorative term, no? Prosecutors allege a criminal conspiracy in cases all the time, but even in that kind of circumstance we probably wouldn't have a sentence that said "The state argued a conspiracy theory", given the negative implications. (In light of this, I'm leaning towards keep both.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• See also: Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 2 § Anti-vaccine advocate (though it may well be propaganda). ––FormalDude (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I too would avoid the pejorative word "propaganda" on WP:TONE grounds. If they must be included, terms like "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories" should not be stated in wikivoice. Instead, it should be stated dispassionately what the sources say. See Deepak Chopra for some examples of more appropriate wording: "His discussions of quantum healing have been characterised as technobabble"; "The ideas Chopra promotes have regularly been criticized by medical and scientific professionals as pseudoscience." (emphasis mine). HappyWanderer15 (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• @Recobben: could you please self-revert your change to the first sentence? It's under active discussion in this RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Summary of discussion thus far: In the interest of arriving at some type of consensus rather than continuing to repeat the same back-and-forth ad infinitum, I just read through the discussions and polling below. Overall, I counted 17 votes for keeping the status quo and 19 votes advocating some sort of change, ranging from modest to substantial. I think it's fair to say that only a modest change is likely to achieve consensus. With that in mind, it seems that there is an overall consensus for keeping the term conspiracy theory but changing or removing the term propaganda. Some have suggested using the term misinformation instead. Would anyone like to comment on that possibility?

A second area of concern that has been frequently raised is tone: specifically the use of wikivoice. It's less clear what should be done about this, as there are very strong opinions on both sides that seem unlikely to budge. Some suggestions I've seen are to move the pejoratives out of the first sentence, and/or to state the pejoratives outside of wikivoice, e.g. "Kennedy's views of vaccines and public health have been widely described as conspiracy theories and misinformation." What do folks here think of these two possibilities? Are there any other suggestions for how concerns about tone could be addressed? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The first part of your summary seems like vote counting without analysis of the strength of arguments. CT55555(talk) 14:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I did try to summarize key arguments in the second half. However, I am not perfect. Feel free to expand on my summary. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Polling

• Keep content The terms aren't pejorative, they are descriptive per the dozens of reliable sources that have been describing the BLP subject for decades. Despite the subject's very recent presidential run announcement, their promotion of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories remains their primary source of notability. As an similar example, we wouldn't remove such descriptive terms from Alex Jones' lede if he announced a presidential run. Silverseren^C 02:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Alex Jones argument is WP:OSE Strawman used to equate this debatable case to a podcaster who is solely known for his controversial brimstone. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Before the recent presidential run, RFK Jr was solely known for his anti-vaccine and general pseudoscience views. No different than Alex Jones. Silverseren^C 06:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusions, but disagree that he was solely known for anti-vaccine stuff. While he was very well known for that, perhaps best known recently, he is also well known for his environmental work, and his civil rights work.

I have argued to keep both terms in the lead, below. CT55555(talk) 14:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep content I think one could quibble about the wording, but none of this violates WP:BLP. It is well sourced. The Alex Jones example given above is pertinent. His promotion of anti-vax information is central to his notability. I'm not deeply attached to the use of "propaganda" though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep "conspiracy theory" language, indifferent on "propaganda" language: I think we have enough sourcing for the conspiracy theory language in the lede. I don't doubt the sourcing on the propaganda language, just don't think its adds much. Most conspiracy theorists spread their theory and propagandize. I think "who has promoted anti-vaccine and health related conspiracy theories" or some variation would be fine. But I also wouldn't oppose keeping it as is. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Neither in the first sentence. Putting this kind of criticism into the first sentence is pretty much always wrong. If you have the sourcing, it's fine to put them in the article. But not in the first sentence. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just to expand on this a bit, here are some politicians who were also mass murderers. In each case, the sourcing for their mass murders is excellent. In each case, it is not mentioned in the opening sentence: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Francisco Solano Lopez, Leopold II of Belgium. Only two of them even mention it in the first paragraph. If that can wait for later in the article, so can this. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all of those people have multiple reasons for their notability, unlike RFK Jr., who is primarily known for pushing propaganda and conspiracy theories. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think he's better known for this[2]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Here's how he is described in Time, which is typical of reliable sources: "environmental lawyer, prolific author, master falconer, Hollywood husband, and anti-vaccine crusader."[3] Maybe the Biden campaign will succeed in making him best known as an anti-vaxxer, which is his major negative among Democrats. But we're not paid to do their work for them. TFD (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  No this is not an OSE issue, this is an issue of AP2 articles where editors like to use pejorative terms. No editors are interesting in dogpiling on top of Hitler as he is long dead. These articles provide a good example of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 01:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Jtbobwaysf: I mentioned OSE because it's a poor argument. Comparing this article to Hitler's is patently ridiculous.

  @Adoring nanny: Hard to imagine an article that has existed since 2004 is primarily notable for an event that occurred less than two months ago. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed comparing articles is always a tough one and not that useful due to OSE concerns. However, it is clear the two articles are different in one is a BLP and one is not. Meaning history buffs like one subject and politics people like another. It is remarkable that so many people care about this article and want to participate in an RFC (at least to me as I am indifferent other than it is a BLP that I felt was being excessive in its bashing of the subject). I think it is good when more people participate in an RFC so that part at least is useful. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Having done my level-headed best to get an unbiased sample of sources below, I see that six of the seven sources say, when introducing RFK, that he is anti-vaccine. I would support including that very early in the article, but I still think it can wait for the second sentence. Three of the seven sources used strong language ("debunked claims" or "conspiracy theory") in the region where RFK was introduced, but only NBC did so in their first sentence of the portion that introduced RFK. The first-sentence placement proposed in this RFC is therefore WP:UNDUE as it is increasing the prominence above that in the sources themselves. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep content per above. He is very well known these sorts of theories, and it's prominent enough to warrant a mention in the first sentence. There isn't any sourcing issues, either. The Alex Jones example is very potent. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content. Promoting disinformation and conspiracy are RFK Jr.'s job as head of CHD, and the foundation of his success there. So definitely belong in the first sentence. Possibly substitute "misinformation" or "disinformation" in place of "propaganda", as sources often use those words to describe what RFK Jr. does. -- M.boli (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content It is the most important aspect of this person and comes from several reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Amend content Remove the term "propaganda." The terms "conspiracy" and perhaps something like "misinformation" could be included, if and only if they are not stated in wikivoice. For example, "Kennedy's views on vaccines have been criticized as misinformation by medical professionals." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content. Reliable sources identify him as a conspiracy theorist
  1. The Guardian: "conspiracy theorist"
  2. Rolling Stone: "The environmental lawyer turned conspiracy theorist"
  3. NBC "...history of sharing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about vaccines."
  4. And importantly, NPR did an article on the 12 most influential vaccine hoax sharers and he made the list: "Take anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the "Disinformation Dozen"

Reliable sources speak of him pushing propaganda:

1. McGill University "The Anti-Vaccine Propaganda of Robert F. Kennedu Jr."
2. Scientific American "Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda completely unconnected to reality"
3. Richard Allen Williams said Kennedy was leading “a propaganda movement” that's opinion, but sufficiently important opinion to be also quoted in AP here.
4. More opinion from a medical doctor, on CBC "Kennedy's own family has disavowed his propaganda efforts"
5. News.com.au Robert F. Kennedy Jr kicked off Instagram for anti-vaccination propaganda

So, reliable sources call him both terms, which is exactly what should guide us, there is every reason to use both terms and, in my opinion, no credible reason not to. The significance of the use of both terms is high. He is not just a pusher of conspiracy theories, he is one of the top people who do so. It is appropriate to have these words at the very start of the lead. CT55555(talk) 14:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that mainstream media uses the term is an indication of their falling standards of professionalism, which have cost them dearly in reputation and public trust. Wikipedia should not emulate their decline. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the propaganda claim is true but whether the phrasing represents a neutral tone, which is a guideline for BLPs. Why not instead use a term such as polemics, which means the same thing but is non-pejorative? TFD (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

We need to be neutral and accurate. We don't need to concern ourselves about hurting people's feelings by accurately representing what reliable sources say. So, to answer your question, why not say "polemic"? Because that's not what the sources say. Neutrality doesn't mean compromise in the middle. CT55555(talk) 18:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

We need to call a spade a spade, not water down terminology. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

According to an article in NPR, you should use caution in using the expression "to call a spade a spade," because of the term's racist connotations.[https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade] IIRC, it was a term used by Archie Bunker.

While some sources, particularly those written to criticize Kennedy, use the term "propaganda," most do not. As I said, it is a matter of tone. If you want to write an article critical of Kennedy say propaganda. If you want to follow the MOS, don't. TFD (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Which part of the MOS is it that precludes us from saying "propaganda"? CT55555(talk) 20:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Tone: "BLPs should be written...in a dispassionate tone. Articles should document in a non-partisan.... Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking."

Also, see Impartial tone: "articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." TFD (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize: ...unless a person is commonly described... CT55555(talk) 00:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

And as you know, RFK Jr. is not commonly described as you think this article should. Is there any reason why this article should describe him in the same way as the vast majority of news articles in the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR and other mainstream news sources? Note that none of those sources endorse him. TFD (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't tell people what you think they know, especially when they have said something different in the same thread. I have literally shared a list of reliable sources that describe him as an anti-vaxxer. I don't think you and I are going to persuade each other, or anyone else at this point. So let's end this back and forth here, avoid the bludgeon and let others opine. CT55555 out. CT55555(talk) 01:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out that the Guardian is calling him a "conspiracy theorist" because of his endorsing of the claim that the CIA were involved in the killing of his father and his uncle Jack. They don't endorse him "promoting … health-related conspiracy theories" (our text), but simply refer to him as a "vaccine sceptic" in that respect. Pincrete (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not ''The Guardian'', its their breaking news editor in an analysis which incidentally is not considered rs per Wikipedia:NEWSORG. Their actual news reporting follows neutral tone which is what this article should do.

I don't know why CT55555 brought up anti-vaxxer. It's not in the article, not part of the RfC and I did not mention it. TFD (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

His anti-vaccine endeavours absolutely are in the article. Here's just a little bit from the lead:

"Since 2005, he has promoted the scientifically discredited link between vaccines and autism, and is founder and chairman of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Kennedy has emerged as a leading proponent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in the United States"

I brought it up because a significant amount of the misinformation, conspiracy theory, propaganda etc that he shares is about anti-vaxx stuff. It's completely germane to the discussion. CT55555(talk) 23:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. You wrote, "I have literally shared a list of reliable sources that describe him as an anti-vaxxer." [01:16, 18 June 2023] However we do not use the term "anti-vaxxer" in the article. I have repeatedly said that the article should reflect the facts about him in reliable sources. My objection is when the article uses emotive, value-laden and pejorative language. Your example shows that the facts can be presented without using unencyclopedic language. TFD (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you concerned that I used the "anti-vaxx" as an abbreviation of "anti-vaccine"? I think it's a fairly standard short hand. I'm really trying not to dominate the conversation here, bludgeon, so if this triviality is the point where we disagree, please drop it. CT55555(talk) 23:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, the article should avoid unencyclopedic terms and words. The choice of words and terms is not a triviality, it's the subject of the RfC. The title of the RfC is "RFC on use of terms in first sentence." TFD (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• How many attempts to whitewash the lead do we have now? If you are a Kennedy fanboy, just vote for him. Otherwise please refrain from using Wikipedia as advertisement page during the election period. --Julius Senegal (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think there are 12 talk page discussions currently on the page, that isn't counting those that were quickly deleted, or the editors who boldly changed it without discussing.

  It seems a lot of people don't like him being described as anti-vaccination. Interestingly, I've not seen anyone present any sources that refute it.

  It reminds me of flat earthers. All they would need to do is show us a photo of the ice walls and maybe they'd convince us. I'll reverse my stance here if someone shows a bunch of reliable sources saying how RFK is a champion of scientific analysis, a world renowned biologist, or a vaccine enthusiast. Until then, it seems a of people don't like something, but are unwilling or unable to back up their objection. CT55555(talk) 20:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It is for this reason that I ran the RFC as I have seen numerous recent objections to it. I am not a "fanboy" as you assert and could care less about USA politics. These type of hostile partisan views fail to WP:AGF are rather one of WP:BATTLE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep content as it is reliably sourced and it is what RFK Jr is primarily known for. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content. It's what this person has been best known for for over a decade, and it would be editorializing it to call it anything different, or to leave it out of the first sentence that includes his other endeavors. The terms in question are used in a matter-of-fact "businesslike" way and well sourced. —siroχo 06:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move the pejoratives to a second sentence If we want to make sure no one with Kennedy leanings reads our article, but instead stops after the first sentence, we should keep the words "propaganda" and "conspiracy" in the first sentence. I'm sure most of you won't miss their patronage, but I'm not so happy about having them go to the seedier side of the internet to do their pre-election research. A little tact goes a long way. Let's keep the first sentence of bios (particularly political bios) 100% undeniable, objective, non-inflammatory fact, and leave the "the consensus of reliable sources said" things to at least the second sentence. Miner Editor (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• So the moment someone notable for pseudoscience runs for political office in any form, we should restructure the lede about their primary notability (being the pseudoscience) so that it doesn't mention it right away? Silverseren^C 19:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously. I mean, the point of an encyclopedia is to be kind to politicians, right? </sarcasm> XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Remove (ideally) or move the pejoratives to a second sentence (second choice ). This fails to comply with MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE in it fails "avoiding subjective or contentious terms". I see this failure starting to spread across many wiki articles, not only this article. If anyone is non-mainstream they are labeled a conspiracy theorist (or any other pejorative term) by hit-piece publications and then we wikipedia editors use that to dog-pile on top. There are few neutral publications these days, and many of the RS listed above are far from neutral in regards to their positions on USA's politics. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove 'propaganda' but keep 'conspiracy theory'. "Propaganda" is an inflammatory term that adds no information other than one's disapproval of RFK Jr. It doesn't even imply falsehood, since e.g. war propaganda can be partially or completely true. The fact that mainstream media uses the term is an indication of their falling standards of professionalism, which have cost them dearly in reputation and public trust. Wikipedia should not emulate their decline. "Conspiracy theory" is not NPOV either, but since there's no alternate neutral term that describes the same concept, and since some conspiracy theorists embrace the term, I'm in favor of keeping the term. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content Keep conspiracy theories, change "propaganda" to more specific "misinformation" or "disinformation" - The quotes from the sources listed describe him as this, and we could easily find and add many more sources which say the same that already exist in this article.---Avatar317^(talk) 05:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC) - I now agree that the term "propaganda" can have too broad a meaning - good "war propaganda" to support the war, "propaganda" demonizing the enemy. - and the sources seem to interchangeably use many words to describe his activities. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Neither in the first sentence - Not as written as it seems more interested in condemnation than information. Some - fairly universally - used descriptor such as "anti-vaccine activist", possibly would be apt in the first sentence. The proposed/present text is vague "promoted … health-related conspiracy theories", when what he appears to be known for iro 'health' is anti-vax proseletysing, not other health-related CTs. I'm inclined to agree with Adoring nanny, that Putting this kind of criticism into the first sentence is pretty much always wrong., but a minimum requirement to do so is near universal use of these highly critical descriptors and it being the sole claim to notability. I see substantial, but not universal use of these 'labels', and he clearly has other claims to notability. Delaying and expanding the coverage of his "bad science", allows a more nuanced, informative (and informed) coverage of the topic IMO, apart from avoiding an opening sentence seemingly designed to "shut down" discussion before any actual info is imparted.Pincrete (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Split the sentence in two - Per above. The claims are sourced well and should not be removed, but to me the prose of the sentence comes off very strong. It may read better if split. The sentences could be "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, politician, and writer." and "He has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories." They should of course remain in the same paragraph the lead sentence currently occupies. LVMH11 (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove both from first sentence, I don't agree that the conspiracy beliefs are what he is best known for, and likely not what he will be known for in the future. Neither topic looks to be central to his campaign in office anyways.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content, broadly speaking - But rewording it may be merited. Sources seem to agree that his anti-vaccine message is a key part of what makes him notable, and so it is merited to be in the first sentence. The specific phrasing could be modified to ensure it matches more closely what WP:RS say, but the general gist is definitely supported by said reliable sources. His anti-vaccine views at the very least must be mentioned in the lead, even if the specific wording of "conspiracy theory" or "propaganda" is not. Fieari (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep conspiracy theory; narrow remove propaganda. This was a surprisingly tough one for me. On the one hand, yes, Wikipedia has its own rule about tone. But I actually think that's met here: there seems to be a minority of voices suggesting that pejorative descriptions are never appropriate, but we have plenty of articles that use the term conspiracy theory in the title, let alone the first sentence: see, e.g., Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death, World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories.
  That said, I do think there's a WP:NPOV (specifically, WP:DUE/WP:WIKIVOICE) aspect to this, although my interpretation may be unique. I think that the descriptions of Kennedy's actions do fit WP:V and WP:RS—I'm not contesting their accuracy. But, when using pejorative language, I think we have to be sure that our tone doesn't reflects the vernacular used by only a distinct minority of reliable sources, even if the majority of sources do not factually contradict that vernacular. In other words, I don't think Wikipedia should, in its own voice, have a tone more extreme tone than the majority of reliable sources. Several reliable sources note Kennedy's affinity for or promotion of conspiracy theories: New Yorker New York Times (NYT again), The Guardian, NBC News, The Hill, Forbes, etc. As such, I don't think the use of the term here imparts an extremity of tone only reflected by a distinct minority of publications. On the other hand, very few use the term propaganda, particularly without attribution. I couldn't find the term used in any of the aforementioned publications, except in this Guardian article, which attributes to a third party. As such, I support the inclusion of conspiracy theory (even if in the first sentence) and support the removal of propaganda.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just to point out that the Gdn source - the first you cite - is speaking of him endorsing 'conspiracy theories' relating to CIA involvement in his father's and uncle's killings. Our text specifically talks of him promoting "health-related conspiracy theories". The Gdn simply calles him a "vaccine sceptic" on the health issue. So, much milder than WP. Pincrete (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think you're understating the Guardian a bit. The Guardian opens by calling him a "conspiracy theorist and vaccine skeptic," and, later, when it says, The site also detailed Kennedy’s transformation from environmental campaigner to vaccine skeptic and conspiracy theorist ..., the phrase "conspiracy theorist" is linked to this article: "Instagram and Facebook suspend Robert Kennedy Jr’s anti-vaccine group"--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep content he says that 5G is used by Zuckerberg and Bezos to control you. Also that WiFi causes cancer, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, Fauci killed people with AZT, glyphosate is "strongly linked" to celiacs, he hasn't stopped saying vaccines cause autism, though he's completely changed his explanations for how that might be occurring. These aren't a few quirky views that he holds, this isn't just asking questions or skepticism, these are central to his world view.DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Reword slightly. The language is a bit un-encyclopedic in tone. "Has been criticised for xyz" would be better. Also worth noting that he is described in a range of ways in RSes and the current language is right at one end of the scale. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content - as long as he's depicted that way prominently in reliable sources, then it's WP:DUE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.126.169.174 (talk • contribs)

That's not what WP:DUE means at all. Miner Editor (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep content based on reliable sources. I may potentially be persuaded that there is a better term than "propaganda" here but I believe that the term "conspiracy" unequivocally fits. I err to the side of keep because of a lot of conspiratorial comments trying to attack the reliability of scientific experts and mainstream media sources and I cannot fathom how we would build an encyclopedia without them. Jorahm (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content or reword slightly. As more and more sources cover Kennedy, it's exceedingly common to see his conspiracy theory and anti-vaccine activity as part of his introduction. I'm not picky about "misinformation" vs. "propaganda". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content He's been doing this for almost two decades now. Shying away from saying so would amount to a wilful denial of the facts. XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove propaganda, and move conspiracy theory out of the first sentence, per Adoring nanny and Jtbobwaysf. Using the word propaganda in this way fails WP:NPOV, because it's just away to pejoratively frame advocacy the speaker disapproves of. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove any heavily slanted or personal opinion-based language and present Robert's views in as matter of fact manner as possible, both here and in the Wikipedia page for his campaign, and do not only include his more questionable sensational views, include the ones that are pro-democracy, anti-oligarchy, and economically leftist as well. David A (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  None of the language currently in the article intro is "heavily slanted" or "personal opinion-based". All of it presents his views in a manner that is quite matter-of-fact. XOR'easter (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep "conspiracy theories", change "propaganda" to "misinformation", there's four sources just in the lead about the two statements, and there's most likely more in the rest of the article. I don't see why it would be removed, as it's backed by reliable sources - so there's no WP:BLP/WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE issues. That said, "propaganda" is pretty vague, and should be adjusted to "misinformation". LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove propaganda and move conspiracy theory out of the first sentence this is clearly not in wikivoice. it presents as WP:NPOV when pejoratives are used in the very first sentence Anon0098 (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove It violates BLP and NPOV. ~ HAL333 17:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep it is well sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Neutrally stating what is reported in reliable sources. This is all reliably sourced, maybe propaganda should be misinformation but that's a minor change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, there is nothing in policy that says we can't use labels in BLPs. The important point here is unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep "conspiracy theories", change "propaganda" to "misinformation" per User:LilianaUwU {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep but "misinformation" is a better word here than "propaganda" because it correctly implies that the conspiracy theories are false, whereas the word "propaganda", despite its negative connotation, does not. (It's possible to propagandize for a theory or government or candidate without circulating falsehoods.) NightHeron (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove propaganda, "conspiracy theories" covers it well enough. This content should not be stated in wikivoice and probably not in the first sentence; I favor HappyWanderer15's suggestion. This content is clearly worthy of inclusion but currently does read as a hit-piece.LM2000 (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move such information to a second sentence at the very least. I am of the mind - and this also applies to articles like The New York Post and Marjorie Taylor Greene - that if you have to create WP:REFCLUTTER, whether bundled or otherwise, in order to justify using contentious labels in the very first sentence of an article (especially given MOS:LEADCITE, though it does concede to WP:BLP), then it would be better to move this information elsewhere and keep the first sentence at least somewhat simpler, letting the rest of the article do the talking. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as well-sourced and the defining aspects of his public career for the past 10+ years. But basically support changing "propaganda" to "misinformation" or similar per LilianaUwU due to vagueness and not being the exact right word. Skynxnex (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as incredibly well sourced and a defining characteristic of his campaign and activism. Keep the material, change the phrasing. It's undeniable that RFK has spread anti-vaccine material and that it's become a defining part of the reason he is as well known as he is, as well as his spreading of conspiracy theories, but I share the concerns of some users above regarding the phrasing. Not in the "Oh No! Wikipedia Has Fallen To The Woke Liberal Brain Virus And Lost All Credibility" kind of way, but in the fact that the sentence "RFK is an X Y Z etc etc, who has spread propaganda" does not look good. Much like we don't say "George Santos is a politician who has lied about a number of statements he has made", in spite of the fact that he has, and that it's about as much a part of his reason for notability as the anti-vaccine conspiracy theorism is for this guy. If you want to define him as an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist (which sources back up that he is), go for it. Something along the lines of Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer, politician, writer, anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist would be better than the current phrasing. As a second option, splitting the sentence in two per LVMH11's suggestion would be good, but the current opening sentence doesn't look good at all imv. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I see your point that anti-vaccine propagandist and health-related conspiracy theorist could be better than the current somewhat weaselly "who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories." -- M.boli (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Remove Both Coming out of retirement to share my opinion on this... Including these terms in the first sentence(!) violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. While properly sourced and possibly accurate, they are not the most important facts about this notable person. Explaining his detailed positions (and apparently hot takes from some media outlets on his positions... which he has refuted directy) in the appropriate sections of the article is fine. However, in the lead sentence? That's ridiculous. Wikipedia is not the place for political agendas of editors. Obviously more notable facts than his nuanced position on vaccines that make more sense in the first sentence of this BLP: (1) he's running for president in 2024, (2) he's the son of RFK and nephew of the former president JFK, (3) he's married to a famous actress. These are easily more notable than comments he's made on vaccines. Editors who insist on including them in the first sentence of the article are making their biases crystal clear. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  RFK Jr.'s book "The Real Anthony Fauci" was, of course all about the famous actress. That is the hundred pages about how HIV doesn't cause AIDS. And his movie explaining that Covid vaccines are a conspiracy to kill Black people is chock-full of his pre-teen insights about his famous uncle. Probably the lawsuits about 5G, smart meters, and Hunter Biden's laptop are deeply illuminating to historians studying his late father. That's why the reliable sources routinely identify RFK Jr. as husband of famous actress and nephew of famous uncle and don't bother with the disinformation, conspiracy theories, and anti-vax activism. (Sarcasm) The above has to be the least serious response to the question on the table written so far. -- M.boli (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  So far. The night is young.... XOR'easter (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Tell me you don't understand what an encyclopedia is without telling me you don't understand. We are not discussing the content of a news article, blog entry, or facebook post here. We are talking about a biographical article in an encyclopedia for a person that is alive. To include two of his more inane positions in the first sentence is equivalent to highlighting "the slap" in the first sentence of Will Smith's article (note: you have to read all the way to the 4th paragraph of that article before it's mentioned). The subject of this article is running for president! That's clearly a way more important fact to list first. His lineage is particularly notable. In his interviews, far more time is dedicated to his ideas/plans around foreign policy, defense spending, and immigration than on these two nit-pick topics. Do they belong somewhere in the article? Definitely! Are they the most important things Wikipedia can share with people about this person? No way! Where do they belong? A section in the article covering them in an even handed manner. Probably a mention somewhere in the introduction, but not in the first sentence or even the first paragraph! --SkotyWA^T_C 17:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Manufacturing conspiracy theories and anti-vax propaganda are RFK Jr.'s literal occupation, as the chair of Children's Health Defense. Most of the articles in the reliable news sources describing his decision to run for president ID-ed him as an anti-vaxer or conspiracist or spreader of misinformation, usually in the first one or two sentences. An encyclopedia article which does not lead off with this living person's primary claim to notability and primary occupation would be malpractice. -- M.boli (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  He has responded to the claims in these sources (and others repeating the same trope) multiple times in recent interviews. Here's one [example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU6lGhCILVQ&t=328s]:

  "I've never been anti-vaccine. I'm called anti-vaccine because that's a way of marginalizing and discredditing me in the view of the public. I've had all my children vaccinated. I was fully vaccinated and I've never been anti-vaccine. But what I've said is I'm pro-science and pro-safety and we ought to subject vaccines... to rigorous, placebo controlled trials that are mandated for every other medicine. It's the only medicine that's exempt from pre-licensing safety trials..."

  Insisting that the claims in these news sources be repeated in the first sentence of a biographical article on the man violates WP:WEIGHT and is borderline WP:BLPGOSSIP. I don't refute that they are properly sourced and the content belongs somewhere in the article. I'm not sure why it being in the first sentence is a hill you feel you must die on. The current third paragraph of the article does a much better job presenting the points (using many of the same sources) without it being blatantly guilty of WP:BLPGOSSIP. So I stand by my !vote to remove them both from the first sentence. Keep the third paragraph of the intro though. That makes sense. --SkotyWA^T_C 19:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Remove both, for the sake of what remains of Wikipedia's credibility. The term "propaganda" is loaded with POV, and the term "conspiracy theory", written in earnest, instantly discredits anyone using it. Given the fact that our encyclopedia asserts that it is false that "children can be effectively protected from disease solely by natural immunity", we are already hanging by a slender thread in the eyes of any objective readers still hoping to take this project seriously. Eric ^talk 02:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. There's no way we can go about writing this BLP without including his views on and work against vaccines as they have been the majority, if not the only thing, that has kept him in the public eye in the past decade or so. Pretty much any recent news article on him will at least mention his anti vaccine stance, even if they do not comment further. And there's no way we can include his views and avoid describing them as conspiracy theories and some form of propaganda/misinformation/disinformation(not sure which term exactly should be used, other commenters have made good arguments on this) when his views are directly contradictory to the overwhelming scientific consensus and are well described as conspiracy theories in RS. Cannolis (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• Change "propaganda" to "misinformation" and remove conspiracy theories - I believe that propaganda is somewhat of an uncommon term to describe health related theories. I believe misinformation is the term more used today. In terms of removing "public health–related conspiracy theories" I believe that is pretty broad and the anti-vaccine information is better for the first sentence. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Starting a list of sources below. To try for an unbiased sample, I am going to start with the most recent sources I can find in NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, and BBC. I wish I had typed that before looking at any of them, but unfortunately I already looked at the NYT one. Sources coming up. Anyone should feel free to add to the list.

• NYT[4] the 69-year-old environmental lawyer and vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr
• ABC[5] Vaccines are mentioned only briefly. A whole bunch of other sites say that ABC edited them out. The ones I saw were non-RS, i.e. the NY post here[6], but I imagine one could find the claim in an RS somewhere. By my procedure above, this would not count, but it's still interesting.
• NPR[7] Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a climate-change activist and vaccine skeptic
• CBS[8]Kennedy, a nephew of President John F. Kennedy and the son of his slain brother Robert F. Kennedy, was once a best-selling author and environmental lawyer who worked on issues such as clean water.

But more than 15 years ago, he became fixated on a belief that vaccines are not safe. He emerged as one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement, and his work has been described by public health experts and even members of his own family as misleading and dangerous.

• NBC[9] Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has attracted criticism for his history of sharing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about vaccines.
• BBC[10] (para. breaks omitted): The 69-year-old is the son of assassinated Senator Robert F Kennedy and nephew of President John F Kennedy. The environmental lawyer's campaign treasurer, John E Sullivan, confirmed the filing on Wednesday. Mr Kennedy is an outspoken anti-vaccine campaigner. Instagram removed his account in 2021 for "repeatedly sharing debunked claims"
• CNN[11] Instagram announced Sunday it had lifted its ban on Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the anti-vaccine activist who has launched a presidential bid, two years after it shut down Kennedy’s account for breaking its rules related to Covid-19.

Adoring nanny (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice how none of these sources describe Kennedy using contentious labels, as this article does. They simply describe his positions, and how they are viewed. But to read some of the comments on this page, you'd think these mainstream news reporters were "whitewashing" the facts. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This proves that if you make a list of sources using the criterion "does not call Kennedy a conspiracy theorist", you get a list of sources that do not call him a conspiracy theorist. What is that supposed to prove? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

For one thing, it proves that it's possible to write an article about him without using NPOV terms, which it is Wikipedia policy to do. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it is Wikipedia's policy to describe him as done in Reliable Sources; that means looking at how ALL RS sources describe him, not just the cherry-picked ones. We've got lots of sources in this article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to any policy that says that? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch lists many circumstances where the terminology in sources should not be used and WP:BLPSTYLE (which is policy) sets high standards for the types of words we can use in biographies of living persons. TFD (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That was not a criterion. After finding the NYT source, I stated in advance what I would do for the other six. Furthermore, if you look at the actual quotes above, it should be obvious that I was not cherry picking. For example the NBC one. @Hob Gadling and @Avatar317 please strike the false statement that my criteria were not what I said they were, or provide evidence. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I would submit that those who would insist on the term "propaganda" are the ones cherry picking; it's just that they are cherry picking the sources with the most pejorative possible language. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not live in an English-speaking country and I have no idea whether NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, and BBC are the most reliable sources, the most popular sources, or just the sources people with your POV typically get your information from. So, for all I know, this could just be your echo chamber and be effectively cherry-picking for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Those are all mainstream media sources in the US and Britain. BBC And NPR are public broadcasters. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

So? Is it a complete list of mainstream media sources in the US and Britain and public broadcasters? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I prefer sources that know what they are talking about, such as WP:SBM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not Kennedy's falsehoods are "propaganda" or "conspiracies" is not a biomedical issue, but a political issue. Miner Editor (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. When some layperson such as Kennedy makes claims about medicine, medical scientists are competent to recognize them as factual, or as having a tiny bit of merit, or as conspiratorial bullshit. Especially if they are experts on medical pseudoscience, as the SBM people are. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether Kennedy's falsehoods are "propaganda" or a "conspiracy" or him just being wrong goes towards Kennedy's motivation. Scientists do not have an inside track on his motivation. Miner Editor (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That might be true as to propaganda, but I'm not sure it's true as to conspiracy theory. Saying that someone spreads conspiracy theories doesn't imply that the person does so disingenuously. That said, I agree that medical scientists aren't experts as to what constitutes a conspiracy theory.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Come on, it is obvious that he is spreading conspiracy theories. See "Deadly Immunity" [12]: The story of how government health agencies colluded with Big Pharmacy to hide the risks of thimerosal from the public is a chilling case study of institutional arrogance, power and greed. That article is full of coverups of connections that do not exist. And SBM is competent for telling whether a connection exists or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait, what? I'm not sure what you're trying to say, and no interpretation I can come up with relates to what I said. My point was that scientific experts, while certainly in a unique position to determine truth/falisty of a claim, aren't in a unique position to call the claim a conspiracy theory. That said, as you can tell from my !vote above, I support including "conspiracy theory" in the first sentence. --Jerome Frank Disciple 17:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I read your sentence That might be true as to propaganda, but I'm not sure it's true as to conspiracy theory as doubting that he actually is a conspiracy theorist. You can't expect me to read your entire opus before responding to that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that he is spreading theories that are at best speculative and unproven. However, that is not sufficient reason to put it into the first sentence of the article. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you say more about that? Because that does't seem true to me. I could share propaganda and share a conspiracy theory and not know I am doing so, but still do it. I don't think this is a matter of motivation, I think it is a matter of action. CT55555(talk) 17:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The interesting thing about this conversation, to me, is that all that those of use dissenting from the current wording are saying is that we should dispassionately share what the sources say (i.e., minimizing the use of pejoratives, and if they are used, not using them in wikivoice). Your use of the word "bullshit" here, along with your other comments on the talk page, suggest you have strong feelings on this issue, which is fine. That's why MOS and BLP guidelines are there: so that we can tone down those passions when writing encyclopedic content. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for implying that the sources you listed were cherry-picked. What I meant overall is that there are thousands of sources mentioning Kennedy's actions regarding this subject, and we should follow what the majority of them say. As for the ones you listed, I wouldn't be surprised (and could probably find examples) of THE SAME news source alternately calling him a spreader of "misinformation", "disinformation" and "propaganda" all at different times/articles, even by the same author. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

And in today's WaPo article what RFK Jr. does is labeled misinformation. Focusing on the word propaganda misses the point. Add up all the disinformation and misinformation and propaganda and all the time his messages are described as deceptive or just plain wrong. Peddling propaganda is what RFK Jr. does for a living. Huge numbers of reliable sources and academic experts describe him doing it. I might agree that another word would sound less fraught -- I feel it carries baggage of mid-20th century conflicts. But removing from the lede sentence his primary activity in the public would be malpractice. M.boli (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Right. If he becomes president, Paul Offit may have to flee the country because Kennedy said he should be locked up and the key thrown away [13] - I don't know whether the crime was saving thousands of lives by developing vaccines or contradicting Kennedy's fantasies.

"Disinformation" would mean that he does not believe what he says, and there is no evidence for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

« Anti-vaccine propaganda » is obviously a biased and imprecise assertion

Robert Kennedy Jr attacked the early *Covid-19* vaccines (and not all vaccines, this is the ludicrous innuendo) and this is only propaganda if you believe the startling claims of those advocating these early vaccines while the data provided for them is troubling at best... Summary here for the Pfizer trials on Joe Rogan show; https://twitter.com/Resist_05/status/1669854935343824896

Please remove the militant language and adopt a more neutral tone. Wikipedia is really losing a lot credibility aligning itself with one side of the story.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.210.7 (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Read this Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

second that. the first paragraph is just absurdly biased and furthermore has no basis on fact. it only references some journalists/columnists who based there opinion on nothing scientific at all. just opinion. Shurbanm (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

"Their" opinion. The science is sound, and RFK Jr. is an anti-vaccine propagandist. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This is entirely false. There is no evidence to suggest that RFK Jr. is "anti-vaccine". He has never claimed to be "anti-vaccine". More accurately, he has been critical of the safety of some vaccines. He has stated that he is "pro-safe vaccines". The actual science of whether said vaccines are safe is another issue, and is irrelevant to his osition. on vaccination overall ZephyrTurtle14 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the truth literally does not matter, and editors here are very proud of upholding that standard, particularly on political articles. What matters is what "reliable sources" say is true; please review WP:RS Miner Editor (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The usual reasoning is: following Kennedy's unrealistically stringent criteria for safety, there is not a single "safe vaccine" in existence or even theoretically possible, so, in practice, he is against all vaccines and therefore anti-vaccine. If you actually read the reliable sources, especially SBM, instead of just doubting what we quote, you could have found that yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Every live vaccine studied for all-cause morality has been shown to have very great positive effect, to an extent well beyond their positive effect on targeted diseases, so these would be vaccines that RFK would theoretically approve of. Because CDC does not seem to accept non-specific effects of vaccines shown by Aaby, Stabell Benn et al. as well as all other studies done other than one in Denmark, it greatly undersells the number of lives saved by live vaccines, which contributes to vaccine hesitancy.

Gorski just called RFK “evil” a couple of times in his latest blogpost. I know SBM is considered by editors in the RfC to be a RS but I dissent. Though Gorski often goes into detail which I think helps reliability;the great bias, extreme ad hominem and unevenness with the facts should render it an unreliable source (I realize this is not the place for a dispositive determination of whether it is a RS). JustinReilly (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

these would be vaccines that RFK would theoretically approve of Bad theory. RFK is totally clueless about science, so you cannot draw any conclusions from reality to him accepting it as reality.

extreme ad hominem Since we do not quote them, there is no problem.

unevenness with the facts How do you know? Sounds like WP:OR to me. When Gorski and some random Wikipedia user disagree, The Wikipedia prefers Gorski. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

He’s not “totally clueless about science.” He’s perhaps the world’s leading environmental lawyer. As he says, to successfully litigate hundreds of lawsuits that turn on science, you have to have a very solid understanding of the relevant science. How else would you successfully cross-examine the defendants’ scientists? He has a long successful track record and was universally acclaimed for decades as a champion of science and public health. JustinReilly (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

He’s not “totally clueless about science.” He’s perhaps the world’s leading environmental lawyer. When it comes to medicine, that guy accepts what obvious frauds like Wakefield say and rejects what real scientists say. He cannot tell an obviously fake study from a legitimate one. When it comes to environment, he probably does trust the scientists, but that does not mean he understands the science. I see no evidence that he does, only your opinion.

was universally acclaimed for decades as a champion of science and public health your opinion again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Look to what is unsound science (the definition of unsound science), that is what RFK Jr, not a trained scientist, is advocating. Look to what is propaganda (the defintion), that is what RFK Jr is expressing. So, keep the "propaganda" usage in the article.Dogru144 (talk)

"The definition of "propaganda" is "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause." (Merriam-Webster)[14] That could describe statements by any politician. The only reason to use it in this case and not for example for his opponent, Joe Biden, is that it is pejorative. We want readers to support Biden over Kennedy, which violates policy. TFD (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Oxford Languages give the definiton of The systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view. [15], which is accurate to what RFK Jr. does. He has a long history of putting out numerous misleading and false claims related to vaccines and other health issues, which are systematic disseminated by his Children's Health Defense organisation. Your argument that The only reason to use it in this case and not for example for his opponent, Joe Biden, is that it is pejorative. We want readers to support Biden over Kennedy, which violates policy is frankly preposterous. Joe Biden is not primarily notable for spreading misinformaton, for one thing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

We want readers to support Biden over Kennedy. Who is "we" and what is your evidence for that stunning assertion? The vast majority of Wikipedia readers are not eligible to vote in next year's U.S. presidential elections. Those that are can select among another Democrat, Marianne Williamson, or a plethora of Republican candidates, including the former president Donald Trump and former vice president Mike Pence, plus several current and former governors, a sitting U.S. Senator, a corporate executive and a media personality. And an abundance of minor candidates. The only interest of Wikipedia editors ought to be that the biographies of these various candidates are neutrally written and that the content is verifiable. We should neither attack nor whitewash any of these candidates, and most definitely should not "go easy" on this particular candidate, just because he has an impressive family pedigree. Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The only reason to use it in this case and not for example for his opponent, Joe Biden, is that it is pejorative. We want readers to support Biden over Kennedy, which violates policy does not appear to assume good faith on the part of other editors here and is just wrong. I don't care for the propaganda language either, but there is plenty of WP:RS discussing it and the folks advocating its inclusion don't appear to be acting in the specific bad faith you're implying here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Calling people who question the current wording "fanboys," disparaging their other contributions to Wikipedia, and reflexively accusing them of whitewashing any time they propose a change, whatever the grounds, doesn't assume good faith either. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. At a certain point, a person has made their views very clear, and there's no point further assuming good faith. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Why would you use the pejorative term fanboy instead of neutral terms such as fan or supporter? Doing so makes your own views very clear. Whatever our personal beliefs we should treat all candidates according to BLP policy. TFD (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

the first paragraph

Seems to be more about character assassination and ad hominmen. The references about his "propaganda" are only from journalistic sources. None of these have challenged the science behind his conclusions. His "conspiracy theories" also list not one scientific paper challenging his own findings which are fact based. Please consider editing out these smears which have no basis in fact. Shurbanm (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

"The science" counters RFK Jr's "conclusions". RFK Jr. is not a scientist. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Because The Guardian calls someone a conspiracy theorist hardly makes it so. MurMiles (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Experts for medical pseudoscience call him that: WP:SBM, for instance.

• Is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. antivaccine? Judge him by his own words!
  • RFK Jr. has, as so many antivaxxers have done, gone all-in on COVID-19 pseudoscience and conspiracy theories and become anti-mask, “anti-lockdown,” and pro-quack treatments for COVID-19.
  • We should think of RFK Jr. as an antivax propagandist, because that’s what he is. His own words as quoted by Kim demonstrate that.
• Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. hosts a trainwreck of an antivaccine forum in Harlem
  • I’ve been writing about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his antivaccine propaganda for over 14 years.
  • His “Deadly Immunity” article was all a conspiracy theory in which the CDC knowingly covered up evidence that the mercury in vaccines then caused autism.
  • RFK Jr. did cling to the thimerosal/autism conspiracy theory for a lot longer than most antivaxers, even Generation Rescue
• Kennedy, Fisher and Bigtree: a triple dose of anti-vaccine injected into upcoming chiropractic conference
  • Long-time anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who will be delivering the keynote at one evening session of the “Summit,” is no stranger to regular SBM readers. His crackpot ideas about vaccines, lies and conspiracy mongering have been the subject of numerous SBM posts.
• Prove the scientific consensus and win a prize: A time-dishonored PR ploy used by cranks, quacks, and pseudoscientists (Robert F. Kennedy Jr. edition)
  • If RFK Jr. were so pro-vaccine, he wouldn’t so completely buy into the latest antivaccine conspiracy theory, that of the “CDC whistleblower” that was at the heart of VAXXED.
• Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., vaccines, the EPA, and the interface with science-based medicine and public policy
  • Is there any evidence that RFK, Jr. has the managerial chops to run a bureaucracy as large and complex as the EPA? None that I can see. Certainly he doesn’t have the temperament for such a task. He’s always seeing dark conspiracies everywhere and is prone to fly off the handle and conflate policy disagreements with evil in the form of Adolf Hitler.

Also, "promoter of anti-science" and "anti-vaccine uber-crank":

• Voices in the Vacuum
  • Politicians either don’t see medical disinformation as worth their time or become prominent promoters of anti-science like Robert Kennedy Jr., who is now running for the highest political office in the country.
• The Pandemic As Spectacle
  • Joe Rogan, who recently gave a platform to anti-vaccine uber-crank Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

"Anti-vaxer" is more a common description though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that a key objective in writing encyclopedic ariticles is neutrality. One would therefore expect a different style from articles written to persuade people, wherever they are published. Take for example your source, "Is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. antivaccine? Judge him by his own words!" Such a title would be inappropriate in an encyclopedia. It's fine for writers of secondary sources to express opinions, not fine for us to do so.

You may think for example that spreading misinformation that will harm people is reprehensible. That's a value judgment and something encyclopedic articles should never say. They can only say that it is regarded as reprehensible.

When editors use terms such as fanboy and propaganda, they are expressing an opinion on RFK Jr. as a candidate. His supporters are unlikely to use those terms. It's not up to us to persuade people how to vote in the primaries. The best we can do is give them information in a dispassionate tone. TFD (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Well said. It should be impossible for a reader to discern the personal opinions of whoever wrote or edited an encyclopedia article. I think it's fair to say that's not the case with this article. I also think it's fair to say that many editors don't care and are actually delighted with having Wikipedia articles written with transparent biases. Miner Editor (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hear, hear. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. As other editors have previously suggested: "Has been criticized for" spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. "Regarded as" an anti-vaccine activist. These or similar qualifiers should be inserted for proper WP:WIKIVOICE -- Kalem014 (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no disagreement within science that Kennedy is dangerously wrong. We should not water that fact down. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

None of this makes sense.

• One would therefore expect So what? Are you arguing that we should not use a reliable source because you think it was written to persuade people? I could argue that the SBM articles are written to inform people. Anti-vax loons are not persuadable anyway, and the SBM writers know that, so I maintain that your claim that SBM is written to persuade people - if that is what you are claiming - is silly.
• Such a title would be inappropriate in an encyclopedia That is probably the reason why it is not part of an encyclopedia.
• not fine for us to do so Nobody wants the article to express their opinion. (I guess that is what you are opposing here.)
• You may think for example [..] They can only say You are refuting a straw man. Nobody wants the article to say that something is reprehensible.

All this is just sophisms, evading the subject with lawyerish hot air. The people who agree with you have no reasoning to offer either. ("Hear, hear", what sort of argument is that?) I say we should use those reliable sources because the authors are very knowledgeable about the type of nonsense Kennedy espouses. Just because Kennedy is a lawyer, we do not have to use WP:WIKILAWYERING in decisions about the article about him. Parts of it are about scientific subjects, and we should use competent scientists as sources when we have them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @Hob Gadling. None of this makes any sense. Donald Trump has been criticized for expressing what has been characterized as misinformation regarding the 2020 election would be gross malpractice, not sober probity. Writing that way about RJK Jr. spreading wagon loads of horse manure wouldn't be wikivoice, it would be malpractice. Wikipedia is on the side of consensual reality. What RFK Jr. does is not. That's his choice. It has been the focus of his career for quite a while. And as responsible Wikipedians that is what to write. - M.boli (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I propose taking out the propaganda of stating his views are discredited and propaganda unless proven

to state blatantly his views on vaccines are all propaganda, there needs to be proof. And there seems to be a lot of proof on the other side. So this should be stated as a controversial subject, but not that it’s propaganda because I have not seen evidence to the contrary. And we all know big Pharma is now running the internet. 2601:249:8A81:2130:B084:EF0D:5156:CA68 (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

there needs to be proof There is proof. You just refuse to accept it as such because you believe big Pharma is now running the internet. Wikipedia is for less proof-proof people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't classify it as propaganda though. Stating views isn't what propaganda means. ZephyrTurtle14 (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not relevant. We just repeat what the reliable sources say, and they say it is propaganda. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to any policy or guideline that says we should use the wording in rs? TFD (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No, but I can point to WP:NOTCENSORED. That is what is going on here. Second-guessing reliable sources by saying there needs to be proof and That doesn't classify it as is an attempt to delete content because WP:IDLI. Reliable sources have a reason for writing what they write. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources have a reason for writing what they write. Yes, they do, and it is often because they will select the verbiage most appealing to their readership, often verbiage designed to generate clicks or gain/retain subscribers and we are not obliged to follow their lead. Encyclopedias are expected to have a different tone and purpose in their writing than their sources. Miner Editor (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There are many reasons why an individual writer would choose a certain set of words. The sources that use the term "propaganda" for example are all trying to disparage RFK Jr. and his anti-vax views. Mainstream news source OTOH are merely trying to describe them and therefore eschew pejorative terminology, just as Wikipedia should. There are in fact policies and guidelines that explain how Wikipedia editors should choose words and phrases, specifically "Words to avoid" in the MOS and "Tone" for BLPs.

Reliable sources, with the exclusion of news reporting and other encyclopedias, usually have a POV. Peer reviewed papers, articles in Skeptic magazine and newspaper editorials all attempt to persuade readers. Encyclopedias however must sound detached.

An rs book about the BNP for example is called Bloody Nasty People. The description is accurate because members of the BNP have engaged in hate crimes and crimes of violence. But we would not use the wording of the source in an article. We would still however report what type of people they were. That's not censorship. That's using a neutral tone. TFD (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There are in fact policies and guidelines that explain how Wikipedia editors should choose words and phrases And they do not say that any phrases are forbidden.

I want to stick to reliable sources. You want to distance yourself from reliable sources in general, insinuating that they are all not as reliable you want them to be because they "have a POV". This is just the usual vague handwaving lawyers do when they try to make witnesses appear less trustworthy, and it has no place on Wikipedia.

If you feel the need, take this to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. There you can argue that reliable sources should not be the arbiter of article content, but instead you should be. Or whatever else you are trying to say. Regarding BNP, you can go to Talk:BNP. Or instead to the article about whichever party you mean. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines and policies about the use of words and terms include:

• Impartial tone: "articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."
• Technical language: avoid using jargon that readers are unlikely to understand. If it cannot be avoided, explain the term in text rather than expecting readers to click on a link to an article that explains it.
• Tone: "BLPs should be written...in a dispassionate tone. Articles should document in a non-partisan.... Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking."
• Contentious labels: "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

RS does not say articles should use the same phrasing as sources and in fact most sources and most if not all news sources do not use the polemical language you favor. RS says articles should report the facts in reliable sources. Why do you think we should not follow the language typically used in most reliable sources, including news media and other encyclopedias?

TFD (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Comparison of sources cited by the description in the lede

Source	Neutral?	Describes Kennedy as a producer or promoter of propaganda?
[16]	Maybe? Polemic tone: Let’s hope Trump drops any idea of a vaccine panel headed by Kennedy. For more than a decade, Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda completely unconnected to reality.	Unambiguous yes.
[17]	WP:RSP	Yes, series of anti-vaccine propaganda films produced or promoted by Kennedy, but not before opting to instead introduce him as an activist in the introduction.
[18]	WP:RSP	Attributes but does not explicitly endorse such a description: Dr. Richard Allen Williams, a cardiologist, professor of medicine at UCLA and founder of the Minority Health Institute, said Kennedy is leading “a propaganda movement,”. Does affirm that his originisation spreads conspiracy theories.
[19]	Campaign group	Kennedy, among other figures, and propaganda are mentioned many times throughout, but I can’t find any statement that Kennedy himself is a propagandist or has produced/promoted propaganda. He is instead described as an anti-vaxxer, and his orginisation seems to be described as advocates.

Personally I think rewriting to describe him as an activist or advocate would best reflect these sources. small jars tc 23:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh wait we already have something like this higher up the page... why are there so many sections about the same thing? Well at least this table focusses on "propaganda" and the other list on "conspiracy theories". small jars tc 23:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. See above.

Picking the statement articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. while ignoring the statement Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other on the same page further down, which obviously modifies it, is not serious reasoning. I am getting tired of this Gish gallop. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue is the choice of language not whether we should treat anti-vax positions as equally valid. It should be cold and rational, not emotional and polemical.

While articles must explain what is true and false, what experts believe and do not believe, they are not supposed to denigrate people or persuade readers what they should believe. TFD (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

True. Thus it is that reliable sources use more dispassionate terms like "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" and "propaganda." As opposed to the accurate metaphorical descriptions such as "gusher of manure " M.boli (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

We are not suggesting describing opposing viewpoints as being equal. We are simply saying that there is no need for the use of pejorative and polemical language in wikivoice in order to accurately present what the sources say. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Darn straight. And according to reliable sources -- largely composed of normative journalism grounded in consensual reality -- RFK Jr. peddles propaganda, disinformation, and conspiracy. If you think those are bad things take it up with himself. We can't fix that. M.boli (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

"He called for a peace agreement in Ukraine based on the Minsk Accords – in his view, the Donbas region should remain in Ukraine but also be given territorial autonomy and placed under the jurisdiction of the United Nations peacekeeping forces, while Aegis missile systems should be removed from the territory of Ukraine."

The Modern Diplomacy article is just an excerpt from his interview to Unherd (which is already cited in the article). There's no point in having two different references for the same content.

There are no Aegis missile systems in Ukraine. There are, however, in Romania and Poland, which is what he is referring to.

I'm also curious as to why this paragraph omits the other, more delusional claims he's made in the interview (such as that the Revolution of Dignity was a coup, or that Ukraine is singlehandedly responsible for the 14,000 civilian deaths during the war in Donbas, all of whom supposedly were Russians, as if not a single Ukrainian civilian died in the war). 93.72.49.123 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the one who wrote the lead for "Political Views" section, so that was coming from me.

I'm sorry about the mix-up regarding Aegis missiles, you're right that he referred to Poland and Romania instead.

Regarding other delusional claims, honestly it just seems that I either somehow missed them, or just forgot to actually include them in the lead. Either way, there was no malicious intent here. I will give the interview a closer look. Thanks! Brat Forelli (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, added them now. Brat Forelli (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Brat Forelli (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove Biased Allegations

I request you remove the claim referring to "propaganda" in the first sentence. Whether the readers are "pro" or "anti" on this topic, why is the use of "propaganda" even relevant? Your readers can decide for themselves rather than have this platform slant the facts for them. 98.176.161.241 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we're discussing this above. Give it a read, come up to speed, and feel free to join us. Miner Editor (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

propaganda exists, and should be called such at all times, especially when it's as harmful as his is. "your readers can decide" is perhaps the stupidest idea for an encyclopedia when talking about factual things.   Countered |talk  10:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"Propaganda" is defined as "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." If we must always call propaganda what it is, then we should be using the term in the Wikipedia articles for all politicians when describing the views they promote. There is no such thing as political campaign that does not employ propaganda in some capacity. However, this is not how the term is used in everyday discourse. Rather, it is normally used as a pejorative term, and as such is not encyclopedic. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Biased allegations? With multiple reliable sources confirming that he's pushing anti-vaccine propaganda? Sure, buddy, whatever you say. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

“Promoting anti-vaccine propaganda” the word propaganda here is incorrect as it is an opinion not a fact. The sentence should be changed to promoting anti-vaccine studies or anti-vaccine research. 89.148.44.192 (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Can you please provide any reliable source that calls anti-vaccine nonsense as "studies" or "research"? a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 13:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I love comments like this. You don't do "anti-x" research in science, that's fundamentally not how science works. The science is in, the facts are in, vaccines are safe and people that espouse falsehoods and misinformation, especially when they're running for president, should be labeled accordingly. 35.143.201.182 (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Jr. is the 4th, not 5th Kennedy to run for president, the only others have been his father and two uncles. That is false information. Last like of the final paragraph under subsection “political aspirations”Conway jon (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Check out the footnote at the end of that line. The 5 includes Sargent Shriver Cannolis (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Shriver wasn’t a Kennedy though? His name is literally Sargent shriver Conway jon (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that's why our current wording is "This makes him the fifth member of his family" so as to not imply Shriver was born a Kennedy but rather married into the Kennedy Family. Cannolis (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

Delete, "who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and public health-related conspiracy theories". I have provided reasoning for this change in the talk section. I did see there is a new source that was provided, but I'm pretty busy this week. Hopefully I can find some time later this week or next to go through it. Cmsmith93 (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

agreed! 107.77.197.155 (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

No action This is already under discussion above and does not need yet another section. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

How do I get in touch with the editors? It looks like someone deleted my other comment here without even discussing it. Cmsmith93 (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

There is already a heap of sections about exactly that, and here are a few of them:

• Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#RFC on use of terms in first sentence
• Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#« Anti-vaccine propaganda » is obviously a biased and imprecise assertion
• Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#the first paragraph
• Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#I propose taking out the propaganda of stating his views are discredited and propaganda unless proven

That is already three too many, and I only linked the first four. Why don't you go to one of those and read the existing reasoning there? If you have a new valid counter-argument, bring it. If not, go away.

How many such practically identical sections do you think there should be?

On top of that, there is also a FAQ at the top of this page, saying

• Q: Why does the article say Kennedy promotes "conspiracy theories"?
• A: Consensus is that multiple, independent, reliable sources describe Kennedy as an advocate and/or promoter of conspiracy theories.

Actually, any new section demanding the same change again should be deleted on sight. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The evidence in the first sentence is insubstantial for backing up the two claims...

Please do not just delete my comment/post without engaging with me. No editor's have engaged in discussion with my comments here. What is the point of having a Talk tab if editors aren't going to argue and counter argue?

Firstly, I apologize for continuing the epic quest of the first sentence. Nobody has taken a dive into these sources though... So, the first claim is that RFK Jr, "has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda". The first article, Scientific American. "Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda" -- There is no source/link so this isn't actually evidence, it's just a random statement from the author. Second article, NBC News. "A new video" -- no video is linked, similar to the problem in the first article. "was recently banned from Instagram" -- this is a red herring fallacy, and I suspect it is used to make RFK Jr look bad since it adds nothing to the main point of the article. "for spreading Covid-19 vaccine conspiracy theories" -- no link. Let's move on to the third article, AP News. "he launched into an anti-vaccine rant" -- link? "people assembled for a far right conference" -- how do you know they're far-right? Perhaps some poll was taken, but that is not in the article. "legal, scientific and public health consensus" -- links? "which uses slanted information, cherry-picked facts and conspiracy theories to spread distrust of the COVID-19 vaccines" -- links? This article has no video of the conference and is seriously lacking in sufficient evidence otherwise. The second claim is that RFK Jr, "as promoted health-related conspiracy theories". Before I dive into the articles, let me give some definitions of conspiracy theory. "'conspiracy' - an agreement among conspirators. 'conspirator' - one who conspires. 'conspire' - to plan secretly an unlawful act." -- The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. "'conspiracy' - a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." -- Oxford American Desk Dictionary & Thesaurus. The first article, The Hill. "Kennedy, a conspiracy theorist and prominent anti-vaxxer" -- no links. Second source, The Wrap. "Shortly after, Hines addressed her husband’s claims..." -- what follows is RFK Jr's wife's opinions about RFK Jr's Nazi reference. This has nothing to do with conspiracy's, as relating to the definitions above. Third article, The Guardian. "Kennedy has campaigned on environmental issues but is also a leading vaccines conspiracy theorist" -- no link. I see journalists stating that he's a conspiracy theorist, but there's no stronger evidence to back it up. If you do not see an issue with what I've pointed out so far please consider the following scenario. If I were to write, and publish, an article on substack and state, "RFK Jr has not promoted anti-vaccine propaganda, nor has he promoted health-related conspiracy theories." without a link/source to my evidence, then my claim would be just as strong evidence as the articles above saying he has promoted these things. In conclusion, these sources are insufficient as evidence to support the claims that RFK Jr 'has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories'. Stronger, sufficient, evidence is required to backup such claims. Until such evidence presents itself, the first sentence should be removed. Cmsmith93 (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You realize our talk pages are archived right? Not deleted? Recommend you review the archives, in particular Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_3#The_evidence_for_the_two_claims_in_the_first_sentence_are_too_weak., in which you made an identical post(just with better formatting) and multiple editors engaged in discussion with you. There is also an active RFC above. Cannolis (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Quoth Cmsmith93: No editor's have engaged in discussion with my comments here. What is the point of having a Talk tab if editors aren't going to argue and counter argue? And at the same time further above: someone deleted my other comment here without even discussing it. The archived discussion of @Cmsmith93's substantially identical earlier post shows 33 entries by 9 participants including many by @Cmsmith93. I doubt Cmsmith93's current complaint is in good faith. -- M.boli (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"Discussion in the press" for EPA Administrator

We should remove the idea that RFK Jr. was under consideration as Obama administration EPA Administrator. Right now the lede says There was discussion in the press that the first Obama administration was possibly considering him as a candidate for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.... (Emphasis not in the original). Having looked for sources, I now understand why this statement is so weaselly. I found little evidence RFK Jr. was ever a candidate for that nomination.

Currently two references are in this article:

• The Politico article explains why such a nomination would be unlikely. It didn't say RJK Jr. was on the Obama transition team list, in effect this article is explaining why he wouldn't be. This article was published the three days after the election.
• The Red, Green and Blue article citation copies a "shortlist of possible EPA candidates being discussed in the mainstream media" from a Bloomberg article published 1 day after election. (Bloomberg behind paywall, I can't see it.)

My search of news sources finds mostly articles from late 2008 saying that environmental activists were suggesting it. An example is this LA Times article, one week post-election, saying "Other candidates for the federal job, according to green groups, include Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ...."

No evidence he was on the Obama administration list of actual candidates being vetted for he post. This would be consistent with the two current citations, and thus the current weasel wording.

I think we should just drop it. That RJK Jr.'s name was bruited about for a job he was not in the running for is hardly encyclopedia-worthy -- M.boli (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Time magazine saw fit to mention it on June 14. Seems encyclopedic enough to me: "In 2009, the Obama Administration reportedly briefly considered him for an EPA appointment, but decided it would be too controversial" Miner Editor (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't that reinforce my point? 14 years later a throw-away line in a reported article says reportedly briefly considered. If news reporting showed RFK Jr. had been an actual candidate, the Time article would say was considered. -- M.boli (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

My point is, it's encyclopedic based on WP:WEIGHT, due to the recent coverage by reliable sources. Reliable sources bring it up with some regularity and there is no reason why we should not include it. Miner Editor (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)