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 Mfrittman (talk | contribs) at 16:15, 17 May 2024 (→Neutral tone: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfC: description of RFK Jr's views on vaccines etc.

There is a strong consensus that the lead should say "RFK Jr. is a conspiracy theorist." There was a small amount of support for B, but most of the support votes also supported A. I discounted the votes for for C that came from IP or SPA accounts that didn't offer policy based rational. The consensus reflects reliably sourced coverage. - Nemov (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[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.


Should the lead say, (a) RFK Jr. is a conspiracy theorist, (b) RFK Jr. promotes conspiracy theories, or (c) avoid both terms in describing his views. TFD (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • (b) Neutrality means that we should use descriptions typically used in reliable sources. He is variously described in reliable sources as "one of the most prominent faces of the anti-vaccine movement, according to experts," (ABC News)[1] "founded Children’s Health Defense, an organization that regularly spreads anti-vaccine misinformation, and has promoted anti-vaccine conspiracy theories," (CNN)[2] "anti-vaccination activist,"(BBC News) [3] and "conspiracy theorist and vaccination opponent." (The Guardian)[4]
WP:IMPARTIAL says that the tone of article should be impartial. That doesn't mean changing the facts in articles, but just the wording. We should not for example refer to someone as a disabled person, but a person with a disability. This is called People-first language. It avoids marginalization and dehumanization by describing what a person has or does rather than what they are.
Could anyone replying to my comment please do so in the comments section below.
TFD (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option C. Jumping into the labeling of negativity is not correct. Remove mentions of it. People need to do research. Envyforme (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option C. Let people come to their own conclusions without labeling him from the 32.221.241.159 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C None of his statements about vaccines or anything elese comes from a conspiratorial point of view. He has won cases and represented people on many of the views he holds after careful reading of the science literature. Claiming a source is reliable, because they have been purported to be reliable in the past does not make a reasonable claim. It is very much an editorialization of his views that comes from a place of bias, and should not be valid in the itroduction of a person who is much more than the opinions of mainstream biased journalists. 2600:100C:A20F:C396:487:C6F2:B3DD:2ED3 (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C options A & B are simply baseless and discredit the legitimately of wikipedia 2601:548:C103:2E40:E941:8CA7:C4EB:24E5 (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(C) The only primary sources that make claims of RFK Jr being ‘anti-vax,’ or a ‘conspiracy theorist,’ are funded by organizations with a financial interest in the current system. He has repeatedly stated that he wants better testing (third-party). That sounds like a position that is more consistent with the scientific method. 2601:405:8500:76A0:980C:DC9E:AAE2:CB82 (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C. Avoid both terms. He is not a conspiracy theorist nor is he promoting conspiracy theories. 2604:2D80:5009:FC00:65D7:B833:A439:2EFB (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C. Avoid both terms. He is not a conspiracy theorist nor is he promoting conspiracy theories. Sbegonia515 (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — Sbegonia515 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
C. seems the obvious choice on a platform seemingly intended to inform not convince. I am sympathetic to the opinions of others and recognize their 1st amendment right have them and they be different than mine; however this is not a place for opinions. Something like Wikipedia, at least to me, should remain fact based ONLY despite the popularity of said facts. The term conspiracy theorist is widely intended to be an insult in today's day and age. It is irresponsible for Wiki to allow this type of blatant negative labeling. This also has a defamation air to it. McGreggor13 (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — McGreggor13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
(End of IP-SPA Gallery above)
  • A - This reflects what the sources say. I'm concerned there might be some meatpuppeting going on above? Comments such as "wikipedia is not the place for opinions" does not demonstrate a thorough knowledge of wikipedia policies and practices, which leads me to suspect that there might be off-site canvassing. Please note: we're all about opinions, if those opinions are reported and extensively discussed in reliable sources. Avoiding labels that could be disparaging is expressly not what WP:NPOV means. Fieari (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Can we get some sort of examples here this is kind of meaningless.Moxy🍁 02:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I provided four examples in my vote. TFD (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, an example for A might be:

Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. ... is an American politician ... and conspiracy theorist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation.

Whereas B might look like:

Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. ... is an American politician ... and activist who promotes conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine misinformation.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unknown-Tree, sorry if I wasn't clear. The reason reliable sources use the expression "person with a disability" rather than "disabled person" is to avoid dehumanizing them. Calling someone an environmental lawyer is not dismissive or judgmental. Other examples of respectful language are "undocumented immigrant" instead of "illegal immigrant," "person of color" instead of "colored person." While many people see this as politically correct nonsense, it's how language is used in reliable sources today. TFD (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But "conspiracy theorist" is how reliable sources cover RFK Jr. (and is what we say in other articles, too), and there's a notable difference between something like a conspiracy theorist and sometimes like someone who's disabled. Yes, I do agree that in the latter instance, we should avoid dehumanising language, but the usage of "conspiracy theorist" is not dehumanising when a major part of his brand identity is his anti-vaccine views. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, some, such as The Guardian, do while most, such as ABC News, CNN and BBC News, don't. TFD (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but this appears to be a malformed RFC. Does anyone dispute that he's a conspiracy theorist? I'm assuming this has to do with the first sentence? Or no? KlayCax (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I was not clear. The question is about how he should be described: as a conspiracy theorist, as someone who supports conspiracy theories or some other phrasing. TFD (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that he's not a conspiracy theorist? Because it seems obvious to me that he is. I feel like I'm misinterpreting something. KlayCax (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, please read my comment above. Articles say Joe Biden "made several false or exaggerated claims," Donald Trump Trump "promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements," Bill Clinton "engaged in an extramarital affair with Gennifer Flowers" and Osama bin Laden "was the organizer of the September 11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people."
Yet their articles do not refer to them as a liar, a conspiracy theorist, an adulterer and a murderer. My concern is that this article use the neutral tone used in most reliable sources rather than judgmental terminology more suited for polemical writing. TFD (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there reliable sources that call them that? For the first three, if you wanted to explain to somebody who they are, those words are not the first that come to mind because they have done more important things. For Osama, "murderer" is a bit tame and also follows logically from more pertinent descriptions. But for Kennedy, as others explained, conspiracy theorist is basically his job description. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See "The Conspiracy Theorist in Chief" (Jamelle Bouie, Slate March 6, 2017), which begins, "Donald Trump is a conspiracy theorist." But we are not supposed to decide what terminology to use, then search for sources that use them. we are supposed to use the terminology usually used in rs. TFD (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've thrown in my vote but even though the activist part isn't dealt with in the RfC, "anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist" would be much better than "conspiracy theorist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation" in my eyes. Even if an activist isn't dealing in the truth they're still an activist, and we deal with the fact it's misinformation in the third paragraph. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's janky, and both fall under the title of conspiracy theorist. There's no need to repeat it three times in the lead. It's insulting to the intelligence of readers. KlayCax (talk) 20:51, 30 March 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.

RFC: What should the first sentence say about Kennedy Jr.?

Seems to be agreement this is not helpful. Bon courage (talk) 09:16, 8 April 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.


What should the first sentence say about Kennedy Jr.?

  1. is an American politician, environmental lawyer, activist, and conspiracy theorist (and/or) anti-vaccine activist. (With Kennedy assassination + anti-vaccine misinformation + public health conspiracy conspiracy theories moved to another part of the lead.)
  2. is an American politician, environmental lawyer, and activist who promotes conspiracy theories surrounding members of the Kennedy family, anti-vaccine misinformation, and other public health conspiracy theories. (conspiracy theories surrounding members of the Kennedy family, anti-vaccine misinformation, and other public health conspiracy theories should be stated twice. Once in the leading sentence. The other in the last paragraph of the lead.)
  3. is an American politician, environmental lawyer, and activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories. ("Who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories". should be stated twice. One time in the first sentence. The other in the last paragraph of the lead.)
  4. Conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassinations, anti-vaccine misinformation, and public health conspiracy theories shouldn't be mentioned in the lead at all.
  5. Another option not listed.

Started due to long-term editing dispute without consensus. Interested to see everyone's thoughts. Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Why start an rfc about the lead sentence when there's already an open rfc about mentioning "conspiracy theorist" in the lead? Also, there is no "long-term editing dispute", the only disgruntled editor bent on removing the current lead wording appears to be you. Zaathras (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TFD and others have objected as well. Kennedy Jr. is obviously a conspiracy theorist so it's a WP: SNOWCLOSE situation. KlayCax (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address the point that there's already an RfC open on essentially the same effing thing. Zaathras (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One is about whether Kennedy should be described as a conspiracy theorist.
The other is about whether "Kennedy assassination + anti-vaccine misinformation + public health conspiracy conspiracy theories" belongs in the first sentence. Two different things.
(I suppose labeling Kennedy as a conspiracy theorist. I oppose the rest being in the lead sentence.) Two different topic areas. I realize they're unfortunately pretty similar, however. KlayCax (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close This is just repeatedly submitting RfCs in order to eventually get enough people (often SPAs) to vote for the WP:FRINGE-violating version. Even if that wasn't your intent, KlayCax, that's how it appears. SilverserenC 02:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RFC's aren't determined by numbers. (In regards to your SPA-question). They're determined by Wikipedia policy.
    TFD, me, and several other editors have all objected to the phrasing, and this is the most simple way to resolve the matter without an endless comment chain. KlayCax (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you reopen the RfC or is there a way to get someone above silverseren involved? I'm tired of the way Wikipedia handles this stuff this is getting ridiculous. 189.202.249.202 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC isn't closed. It's a suggested close, @189.202.249.202:. I do however agree with you that much of the phrasing belongs in the third paragraph. KlayCax (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you do your job and actually see quite a large number of people don't like this description and want it changed? Instead you turn down RfCs and allow a blockage of specific edits to be decided by a minority. Very sad. 189.176.48.231 (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, the opinions of IPs who are not actual editors in standing here do not get counted when determining consensus of a discussion in a contentious topic areas. like this. Zaathras (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, having some sign in problems being out of the country I reside in.
    the topic is contentious, but you cannot let contentious topics block your mindset from actual conversation to update something that should be adjusted. The requests are being made in reason on this talk page. Envyforme (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • #5: Option not listed—an American politician and conspiracy theorist. (By now, other than being a Kennedy, he is known for two things). The first sentence of the lead should be no more complex than necessary. Further details are summarized later in the lede. (perhaps one more identifying phrase might be added to the leading sentence, but no more. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 05:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) —[reply]
    I agree with this option. Maybe also say lawyer. But the rest of the lede has necessary information and the opening sentence should be succinct. Tchouppy (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close due to incoming trainwreck. This is a lot of options and it doesn't even include the status quo ante. If not closed, then Option 5/status quo ante, specifically "is an American politician, environmental lawyer, and activist who promotes conspiracy theories surrounding members of the Kennedy family, anti-vaccine misinformation, and other public health conspiracy theories". As opposed to option 2, this should not be repeated verbatim later in the lead, though some details of each part should be mentioned. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply close this RfC with no alteration. Status quo is OK, viz: is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist. It covers most of the main claims to notability. It is reasonably succinct.
    I think adding a clause about promoting misinformation would enhance it.
    Diluting conspiracy theorist with a misleading qualifier about Kennedy family is simply wrong.
    The person who started this misbegotten RfC lets us know the reason earlier: the lede "comes accross as 'this is a very bad guy'". I don't see why that would be a problem. -- M.boli (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you label someone as a "bad guy" when he isn't a bad guy, the fact you don't see that as a problem is very concerning. Envyforme (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 - Something different.
"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), aka RFK Jr., is a multifaceted figure, engaging in American politics, environmental law, and advocacy, notably challenging conventional views on vaccine safety."
This verbatim I believe solves every single problem here. I believe jumping the gun and immediately calling someone anti-anything or a conspiracy theorist is incorrect, and doesn't continue to shine a character correctly. You can mention it in the second sentence if you want, but, keep in mind, Google, Facebook, and multiple other embedded web calls to wikipedia continue to show the first sentence for searching a specific figure.
Google RFK JR now. you see the term "Conspiracy Theorist and Anti Vax." If you dig further into the person, you can see he has a very bright history, and has a great background as an environmental lawyer and politician. This is part of the reason I cannot help but ask if this is a bit politically motivated by Democrats/Republicans. I want to keep the topic away from here, but I do have to bring this up.
Wikipedia is used to provide information to people in a non-biased matter. Not to label people a certain way directly, right away. Focusing on the downfalls of someone and prioritizing that is weaponizing a website like Wikipedia, and not correct.
Do NOT. I repeat Do NOT Close the RFC based on claims of keeping the current verbatim, as this is not correct and many others do not agree with this. Envyforme (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to write a gushing hagiography about the subject then run, don't walk, to Twitter and tweet it out. This sort of thing will never appear in the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide an alternative? I think it is fair and just. Envyforme (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not do alternative facts, and if "fair and just" means that grifters and loons (like the ones whose false claims Kennedy lawyers for) get the same standing as experts, the Wikipedia does not do that either. Read WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:09, 8 April 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2024

Remove "conspiracy theorist" from RFK Jr's attributes as this makes unproven assumptions about what the Democratic view of a conspiracy theorist is. If he is an anti-vaccination advocate, that is his position, and appropriate to add as an attribute. A conspiracy theorist, however, is a broad derogatory term used here to make Democrats believe he is not on their side. It would be fair to list his specific positions/beliefs on policies and world/national matters. Please maintain your non-political stance and remove that verbiage. 2601:40D:8000:B910:4C5F:C1CC:1ACC:5280 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to many reliable sources (RS), he pushes many disproven conspiracy theories. Look up some of the RS found right after these words in the lead "and public health conspiracy theories". We document what RS say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

"The Courage to Face COVID-19" is not a book by RFK, Jr.

"The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio–Pharmaceutical Complex" is by John Leake and Peter A. McCullough. Not sure why it's listed as a notable work by RFK Jr. He isn't an author on it. That should be removed. Questionheir (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After doing an internet search on that book, it appears that you are correct, Kennedy is not an author on it. Not sure why it was listed on this page, it has now been removed. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

3rd paragraph of this section. Change:

> wrongly claiming that all casualties of the Donbas War between 2014 and 2022 (about 14,000) were Russian civilians.

to:

> claiming that most of the casualties of the Donbas War between 2014 and 2022 (about 14,000) were Russians.

Why?

Fuller quote from the same source: "The Donbas region, which is 80% ethnic Russian — and Russians that were being systematically killed by the Ukrainian government ..."

Article currently states, citing same source[1], using a smaller portion of this exact same quote:

> wrongly claiming that all casualties of the Donbas War between 2014 and 2022 (about 14,000) were Russian civilians. He said that Russians living there "were being systematically killed by the Ukrainian government".[1]

There is no indication of Kennedy stating what the Wiki article attributes to him. Regardless of whether his claims of "80% ethnic Russians" are correct, he did not "wrongly claim that all casualties are Russian". Not to mention a stark difference between ethnicity and citizenship, which are mistakenly conflated in this paragraph. The phrasing "Russian civilians" is also questionable and infers something that Kennedy didn't say(though probably meant, meaning that they were non-combatants) Conciseman (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b https://unherd.com/2023/05/robert-kennedy-jr-america-needs-a-revolution/
 Not done: In fact, the source clearly presents the quote from RFK Jr. “We [the United States] put a new government in [Ukraine] that immediately makes a civil war against the Russian population of Donbas, bans the Russian language, kills 14,000 of them..." That claim is false, and indeed claims that all 14,000 he's referring to were Russian civilians. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral tone

This article discusses a controversial presidential candidate but does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards, especially in the introductory paragraphs.

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."[1]

1) It is advisable to avoid using loaded language such as "anti-vaccine activist" or "conspiracy theorist" at the beginning. Such terms can be perceived as judgmental labels. Instead, describe his positions objectively, for example, "has expressed skepticism about vaccine safety" or "has promoted theories questioning the mainstream COVID-19 narrative."

2) Focus on factual claims that can be sourced and attributed, rather than making definitive statements about what constitutes "misinformation." For instance, instead of declaring his group as "a leading proponent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation," you could say something like "His advocacy group has made claims challenging the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, which have been disputed by public health authorities."

3) Offer balanced coverage by including information about his background, qualifications, and stated motivations, not just presenting opposition viewpoints. This approach allows readers to form their own evaluations.

4) Use reputable sources that represent a diverse range of perspectives when attributing claims and viewpoints. It is important to note that even experts can have political biases.

In the 1968 election, Walter Cronkite's famous neutral delivery of news in relation to George Wallace serves as a suitable example. I recommend that this article maintain a more neutral tone, particularly in the introductory paragraphs. Wikipedia should remain impartial and not favor any specific political viewpoint. Mfrittman (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The key part of the quoted policy is "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The policy does not mean we whitewash things. The reliable sources call him an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When covering controversial topics or public figures expressing views that are disputed by mainstream sources, it is preferable to represent the claims objectively and attribute them to the sources making those claims, rather than using potentially loaded language or appearing to take a stance on the accuracy of the claims. The goal should be to inform readers about the existence of the controversial viewpoints without endorsing or condemning them through subjective characterizations. Mfrittman (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do represent the claims objectively. They are objectively false. Suggesting otherwise would be misinforming our readers. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is a lack of understanding of NPOV. NPOV does not mean that our articles have to come across is neutral. NPOV means that our articles have to reflect reliable sources. All suggestions you propose are not neutral as they cast doubt on vaccines and misportray his antivaccine activism in contradiction to RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is wise for Wikipedia to refrain from making declarative statements that could be perceived as taking sides prematurely. When it comes to the origins and response of COVID-19, while some have labeled certain perspectives as "fringe" or based on misinformation, the truth is that a complete understanding is still evolving. Credible sources have presented differing viewpoints that were initially dismissed by others.
Maintaining a neutral point of view entails presenting a range of prominent perspectives on such unresolved issues without prejudging their validity. Labelling positions as "fringe science" or "conspiracy theories" may amount to editorializing if it conflicts with how reputable sources are characterizing those views. Perceived "consensus" perspectives have been overturned by new evidence and analysis in the past.
In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, it is advisable to use precise, unbiased language directly from reliable sources when discussing the various claims and allegations surrounding COVID-19. This approach avoids assuming which perspectives will ultimately be proven right or wrong in the future. Striving for neutrality means refraining from definitively dismissing views that, while currently contentious, are supported by credible sourcing. The objective is to inform, rather than advocate for a particular narrative.
Does this revised explanation encapsulate the essence of representing contentious, unsettled topics like COVID-19 from a neutral standpoint that seeks impartiality? I have tried to emphasize the importance of achieving balance and exercising caution when addressing divisive issues where the full picture is still emerging. Mfrittman (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17 May 2024. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing disputed views without taking sides in proportion to their representation among experts on the topic.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&oldid=1224312118"