Jump to content

Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skotywa (talk | contribs) at 01:44, 29 January 2024 (→Why does the lead keep getting changed?: Noted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why does the lead keep getting changed?

I thought we're all subject to the conclusion of the RfC, "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer and author who is known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines, and public health–related conspiracy theories. He is a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination in the 2024 presidential election."? Who keeps changing the lead without discussing it here?

The latest change reads like all he's doing right now is going around the country promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories. Even if there is consensus that he is talking about those two things while he campaigns for president, he's talking about two dozen other things as well. Cmsmith93 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? There does not appear to have been a significant change to the lead in months. Zaathras (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're confused about Zaathras. I quoted the RfC conclusion and paraphrased the current version. Idk, maybe the most recent was when Firefangledfeathers did his best to revert it back (because somebody changed it in between his change and the RfC conclusion). Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers has not edited this article since last October, and you refer to "the latest change" when there has been literally no such thing in months. Whatever your issue is, it isn't my fault that you're not articulating your complaint correctly. If you're bringing up an RfC, link it. If you're concerned with different versions of the article, link them (see WP:DIFF for a tutorial. Zaathras (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to edit the article if I link the RfC and the right historical change? Cmsmith93 (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very oblique. Are you proposing an actual change? If so, please say what it is and give a rationale. Bon courage (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Rationale is above, "the latest change...", but expanding on that, the anti-vaccine part and conspiracy theory part should both be presented in the past tense. I think the following would be an improvement...
"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials as RFK Jr. and the nickname Bobby, is an American politician, environmental lawyer and activist. A member of the Kennedy family, Kennedy is a son of U.S. attorney general and senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of U.S. president John F. Kennedy and senator Ted Kennedy. He is currently campaigning as an independent candidate in the 2024 presidential election. He has promoted anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories. He is the chairman and founder of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group." Cmsmith93 (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, ...should be presented in the past tense is funny, when the man was just peddling his own Wuhan conspiracy book on 1-15-24. Zaathras (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully read what I said and then respond... "Even if there is consensus that he is talking about those two things while he campaigns for president, he's talking about two dozen other things as well." Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is an improvement. Drsruli (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would most certainly not be an improvement, as it whitewashes what RFK Jr. is primarily known for. Zaathras (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do remember it said something like, "he is known for anti-vaccine misinformation and conspiracy theories", but it reads differently now. Now the 'known' part seems to only apply to his nicknames.
Also, how do you know that's what he's mainly known for? None of those sources support that claim. Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know because I am able to, er, read? Many, many citations are in the article that detail his antivaxx notoriety. Zaathras (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah come on Zaathras, you're leaning towards bad faith there. I've already gone through the sources. I don't know how to cite my post but in archive 3 it's... The evidence for the two claims in the first sentence are too weak. Cmsmith93 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to cite my post Click on "history", look for your contribution, and when you see the diff between before you wrote and after, copy the https address. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well that this is an improvement and more closely follows the guidance in WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Full treatment of these topics in the article is necessary and important. No one is suggesting otherwise. However, the inclusion of these terms in the first 2 sentences is being pushed by a group of editors determined to ensure it shows up in the blurb for RFK jr in Google search results. I find this behavior a disposable abuse of Wikipedia. SkotyWATC 03:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m starting to perceive your narrative, as well. Drsruli (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we know. It's a conspiracy again, likely paid for by Big Pharma.
If you think it does not belong in the first sentence, you need valid reasons. "I do not want it to appear in Google search results" is not a valid reason. (Are you aware that you people's reasoning makes you "a group of editors determined to ensure it does not show up in the blurb for RFK jr in Google search results"?) --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should feel ashamed for advocating for evenhanded treatment of a living person in their biography article on Wikipedia. I'm so evil. SkotyWATC 01:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove unconfirmed sources.

'Reliable sources' has been cited so much here. 'Center for Countering Digital Hate' and 'The Wrap' should be removed from the article. Cmsmith93 (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What makes them unreliable? Center for Countering Digital Hate was cited by The Hill, which is RS. What's wrong with The Wrap? I see it's only used once and in conjunction with other sources that are RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could've explained my reasoning better. Those two sources aren't in the reliable sources list and since people have been harping on keeping information based on sources in the green in that list we should keep it to those sources. Cmsmith93 (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to WP:RSP? While deprecated sources are generally banned, there is no obligation for sources to be listed there. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I don't know how to link that. If there is no obligation then why do people here often cite that as reasoning for not changing the lead? Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do they? I checked the archives for "RSP", and people use it
Cmsmith93, please note that WP:RSP says that the list is non-exhaustive and goes on to say If your source is not listed here, the only thing it really means is that it has not been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious. Excluding all sources not on the RSP list would amount to excluding "stellar" sources, according to the wording of the list itself. That is not going to happen. Cullen328 (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. WP:RSP is a kind of lies to children for newbie editors who don't/won't engage with the actual guidance on sourcing, which is WP:RS. Bon courage (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if the OP has a genuine reason for believing the CCDH or The Wrap to be unreliable, there is nothing to stop them raising a discussion at WP:RS/N. Black Kite (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 Bon courage Black Kite I'm not hard set on using that reasoning. I wouldn't normally use that reasoning, but that has been the trend here. Hob Gadling, for example, has used that reasoning multiple times in the RfC, in my initial comment back in archive 3 (The evidence for the two claims in the first sentence are too weak.), and he's said that to others.
So if that reasoning is not sufficient to have the lead changed, then why does it keep getting used?
What is sufficient reasoning here on Wikipedia?
People have cited the RfC as sufficient reasoning, but that whole process makes no sense. There is a warning at the top of this page about editors being recruited. In that warning it states; "Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote." but that is exactly what an RfC is. People weren't focused on changing others' minds. They were focused on sharing their opinion. To cite the RfC is utilizing a bandwagon fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). Furthermore, Pillar 2 of Wikipedia "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars" states, "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia." So I don't know why an RfC is supposed to be the go-to after like 3 or 4 rounds of back and forth between editors, but it is.
You don't know the truth just because of what a majority thinks or what sources are generally favorable. People should be coming here, laying out their arguments, and others attacking premises. There is no other way to reach a good faith consensus. Cmsmith93 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems off topic and bad faith. Could you clarify? Cmsmith93 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're a newbie editor trying to change what Wikipedia "says" without reference to alternative sources to cite, and invoking the concept of "the truth". To be clear if you want to convince anybody you're going to need to produce some excellent sources that need citing. Bon courage (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction:
"has used that reasoning multiple times; in the RfC,..." Cmsmith93 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim was that people use RSP to reject sources that are "not in the reliable sources list". Your claim is false. I, for example, used RSP to reject sources that are in the unreliable sources list.
This discussion would be easier if you took the time to learn the Wikipedia basics so people could find out what you are talking about. As it is, your statements are too vague to be useful. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Misinformation”

Nothing useful here. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Remove the words “misinformation” regarding his Covid opinions. Fauci has already admitted the social distancing wasn’t based on science as we were told and now we’re hearing a Wuhan lab leak was a real possibility and this was known all along. It looks like “misinformation” came from our government. Kevshel (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. See the FAQ at the top of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FAQ explains why these things are stated but not why they are in the first sentence. Drsruli (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was about keeping the anti-vaccine bit and the conspiracy theory bit in the lead. Cmsmith93 (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rumors you heard somewhere cannot be used as basis for articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Cmsmith93 (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"Independent" vs "We the People" Party?

It seems that the party affiliation should be changed to We the People Party -- Any objections? - JonathanCross (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign#Affiliation. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - JonathanCross (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Covid stuff is stale and needs updating

NIH has been accused of making money off the patents of Moderna vaccine. This includes Fauci

Department of Energy says Covid was likely a lab leak, a US GOVERNMENT AGENCY

Fauci and NIH employees made money off vaccines via royaltieshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC545012/

This page is patently managed by political operatives as it's locked and nothing ever changes Cocoablini (talk). 23:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFK Jr doesn't appear to be mentioned in any of those sources. SilverserenC 23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be some sort of disclaimers for Americans about non-medical government agencies. Moxy- 02:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's not mentioned, but the "conspiracy theories" he's accused of spreading in this very article are mentioned. The points in this article have references that are older than the material Cocoablini is providing. In the name of WP:BLP we should update this article to remove stale, debunked accusations about a living person as quickly as possible. SkotyWATC 03:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you have sources about the person. SilverserenC 03:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if he said something was true and it's later proven to be true, you're saying it can only be removed from the article if we find a source that directly mentions him in it? SkotyWATC 03:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE have special requirements on Wikipedia to prevent promotion of pseudoscience and conspiracies in wiki-voice. This article is about a long-term pseudoscience pusher and there's been many an attempt by drive-by users to whitewash that information. SilverserenC 03:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Stop archiving requests and comments regarding the first sentence for 60 days. Leaving the discussions easily available to see, may even deter some of the repeated requests. Drsruli (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Long experience of contentious pages shows that people don't read previous discussions, so they end up starting duplicate (or nearly so) requests all the time, which was the case with a number of those I archived; also, there is little point in keeping discussions that petered out more than a month ago. Incidentally, it has been found that a better way of dissuading the same requests over and over again is an edit-notice, so that might be considered. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&oldid=1200212987"