Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Misinformation? Conspiracy Theorist?

This is unbelievable. The first sentence of RFK’s Bio reads that he shares misinformation and conspiracy theories. Pure election interference. He has defended and proven correct many of his theories, therefore this is wildly inaccurate. 2600:8807:C951:AC00:896C:79D8:8FF1:93E2 (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sourced and accurate, I'm afraid. Zaathras (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, this has been in the article long before he aspired to presidency, so even the Pure election interference claim is wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, as has been noted frequently on this talk page, his main claim to fame (and, for our purposes, notability) going back decades has been the pseudoscience and anti-vaccine activity and little else. An election run doesn't change that history. Silverseren^C 07:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

As he is not being nominated by a major party, his candidacy seems destined to be forgotten. Dimadick (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually he came to prominence as an environmental lawyer and activist (as the lead says) and was a co-host of Ring of Fire and frequently appeared on mainstream media to discuss these issues. His comments on vaccination received attention because he was a high profile progressive activist. TFD (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Similar comments from other anti-vaxxers have received similar attention although they are not "high profile progressive activists", so that reasoning does not seem accurate. See the other entries in Category:Anti-vaccination activists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems inappropriately biased. The rise to / cause for prominence is best attributed to 1) political dynasty, and 2) environmental activism. There have been dozens of independent films and media sources that highlight those two facts as the basis for his noteriety. These were established before he was labeled as antivax / conspiracy theory promoter. More recent cause for noteriety is his presidential campaign. So I implore the editors to consider thar antivax / conspiracy theorist views are relevant to include in the page, but do not beling in headline as his primary source of noteriety. 129.21.255.100 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Anti-vax and conspiracy theories are RFK Jr.'s freaking occupation. That's his job as head of Children's Health Defense. That's what his most recent five books are about. (Yes, all five). That's what he makes movies about. That's what he files lawsuits about. To my mind this article is a trifle unbalanced in that it first describes all his past activities before getting to current main focus of his professional existance. -- M.boli (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with M.boli. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that this is an appropriate balance. For an example of a more appropriate encyclopedic tone I encourageeditors to consider the article on Michael Moore. He is best known for making movies that promote conspiracy theories. That's not in his tagline, which is much more balanced. There are many other examples that suggest a more balanced approach may be warranted with this page. 129.21.255.100 (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 2600:6C44:657F:6255:4140:2470:7E51:AE4F (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Or why not use the term “propaganda”? Since it’s a neutral word that could correspond with the article and replace the current words mentioned? 52Timer (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"Neutral word" it ain't. Odd though in this context. Bon courage (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

on it’s wikipage, it states that it’s commonly used as a neutral word, not sure why you aren’t agreeing if y’all say that “we follow articles here”. If so, then it must be right in this context if we are following a NPOV?

If you agree with the current term and situation just say that :) 52Timer (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

What we have is fine. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but even so it says "In the 20th century, the English term propaganda was often associated with a manipulative approach". We're in the 21st century now. Bon courage (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t know an editor could change the meaning of an entire word! I mean many dictionaries have the most similar meanings, if not the same to this one. it doesn’t matter what time period it was.

If you just agree with the current state of the article just say that, but we follow neutrality on wikipedia. 52Timer (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

it doesn’t matter what time period it was ← it does. This is the sort of argument for using "gay" to mean "happy" because it's "in the dictionary". Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Why don’t we see George Bush get the instant label of conspiracy theorist for claiming Saddam Husain had weapons of mass destruction? Hell even Adolf Hitler’s article starts off with less charged language.

RFK is a Lawyer first and that’s how he should be first presented as. AfricanAlGore (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) — AfricanAlGore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Why don’t we Because we do not have any reliable sources that say he is. Read WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

How about the part where he said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction…

Anyways, after seeing your other comments it’s clear to me you have no clue what kind of man RFK is. I suggest hearing what he has to say before peddling the typical media narrative that he’s some deranged conspiracy theorist 2600:100F:B1A1:F078:4191:D:BD1A:43A6 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Address George Bush on his talk page, not RFK Jr's.

You think that you have a clue of what kind of man RFK is? No, you don't. You know who does? His family, who have denounced his campaign. We don't take subjects at their word, we use WP:RS coverage. RS coverage demonstrates that RFK Jr. is engaged in conspiracy theories. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased and fair platform for anyone to use and understand a particular person or topic. There shouldn’t be any room here for people who take in irrelevant content like some of his family members not supporting him and conclude using their emotions that he mustn’t be one of the good guys in your binary view of reality.

And you know what’s truly the most reliable source? RFK himself, not some journalist’s biased interpretation but the literal interview. 2600:100F:B1A1:F078:B4F5:46C4:9F1A:CACB (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Keenedy is the opposite of a reliable source. Read WP:RS. Wikipedia is based on that, and no amount of whining will change that fact and make Wikipedia based on your opinion instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr. is an unreliable source about himself. See WP:ABOUTSELF.

You may think that "unbiased and fair" means that we present equal amounts of praise and criticism. This is incorrect. "Unbiased and fair" means presenting a subject as the reliable sources present them. That's what this page is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Its perfectly fine how they worded this, those of us who know, know exactly what kind of man RFK Jr is, and exactly where Wikipedia stands. This is perfectly okay. 2601:405:C100:4D40:A0B9:1282:DFA9:8804 (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Again though, this is editorializing. That's improper. Why don't we just state the bogus theories he pushes rather than add opinionated words like "misinformation." If he is known for promoting theories linking vaccine and autism, just state that. 108.2.163.18 (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be editorializing if Wikipedians had invented it. But that is what reliable sources say about him. To use your wording, keeping mum about the fact that every knowledgeable person says that he is spreading baseless bullshit that has been refuted thoroughly, would be dishonest. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. This article is not upto wiki standards. These polarised election influenced views ought to be kept out of wiki. 2A0A:2782:3E6:2000:E128:4DEC:D93F:6D20 (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The article said pretty much the same things before Kennedy decided to run for president. They are not election influenced. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Although RFK Jr. earns 500k per year as chairman of Children's Health Defense, his main source of income is as a lawyer, where he earns $5 million per year.[1] He also has an estimated net worth of $15 when would generate additional income and his wife Cheryl HInes has her own career as an actress.

As M.boli says, "his most recent five books" are about anti-vax.

The reality is that RFK Jr. came to prominence first as a member of a well-known family and then as an environmental lawyer with a television presense. Otherwise no one would care what had to say about vaccines.

If you want to edit a BLP, you should at least learn something about the person first. The purpose of the article is to summarize what is known about the person, not a reaction to his political candidacy.

I appreciate that many of his views are controversial and some have attracted widespread disapproval.

TFD (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, and they denounce his anti-science crackpottery, just as with other anti-science crackpots. Yes, there are other aspects, such as his politician-family genes, his long-ago environmental activism, his lawyer job and his recent candidacy. All those aspects need to be mentioned. But because lawyers are legion, because environmental activists are a dime-a-dozen, because having famous relatives does not convey notability, and because of WP:RECENT, but on the other hand, he is one of the Disinformation Dozen, his anti-vaxxer position is the most important one, followed by his presidential candidacy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This is untrue. His legal team won a $2.25 Billion environmental and public health lawsuit in January 2024, which extended the breakthrough $289 Million judgement beginning in 2018 (reference: hundreds of credible sources that come up when you Google "monsanto roundup").

Interestingly, part of what has become a multi-billion dollar legal ruling included court judgements that Monsanto paid operatives for years to smear their accusers in legitimate news sources and in Google searches. One of the specific terms Monsanto operatives used, according to those rulings, was "crackpot". Yet Monsanto's RoundUp actually did cause cancer and their claims of "public health misinformation" were deliberate attempts to silence their accusers through legitimate sources.

I won't presume that anyone insisting on characterizing him as a "crackpot who spreads public health misinformation" is on Monsanto's payroll, but I do think it's prudent to revisit the facts and context surrounding the use of those labels. Given these facts, I implore the editors to reconsider the appearance of bias in this article. I specifically suggest a more balanced headline such as:

"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 and public health lawyer who promotes controversial views that have been labeled misinformation." 129.21.255.100 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Unacceptable WP:PROFRINGE suggestion that whitewashes Kennedy's clear anti-science position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't think it's relevant that $multibillion legal verdicts found his labels as an "anti-science" "crackpot" "misinformation" promoter etc. were partially the result of a deliberate smear campaign in defense of a cancer-causing product. Those rulings specifically pointed out the manipulation of public perception through paid operatives writing in reliable sources.

Even so, I think there may be a misunderstanding. I DON'T think it's appropriate to dilute controversial positions or take a side that promotes misinformation. I DO think it's appropriate to introduce a more neutral tone in the headline to make the article more appropriate for an encyclopedia. I believe Wikipedia shouldn't be caught up in allegations of smear campaigns and should strive to present a neutral tone. I specifically suggest a more balanced headline such as:

"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 and public health lawyer who promotes controversial views that have been labeled misinformation." That still leaves a lot of room to explain why he was labeled that way (and maybe some should stay) without insisting at the start that all of those labels should survive court rulings indicating that some of those labels were maliciously and fraudulently manufactured. (Again, reference the hundreds of reliable news sources that result from Goolgling "monsanto roundup").

Once more, in light of these facts, I specifically suggest the editors apply a more balanced headline such as:

"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 and public health lawyer who promotes controversial views that have been labeled misinformation." 129.21.255.100 (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any reliable source that says $multibillion legal verdicts found his labels [..] were partially the result of a deliberate smear campaign. We cannot base the article on the say-so of some random person on the internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yessss!!! Well said!! 2600:6C44:657F:6255:4140:2470:7E51:AE4F (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, that's your perspective, not the perspective in reliable sources. See for example, Encyclopedia Britannica: RFK Jr is an "American environmental lawyer, member of the prominent Kennedy political family, and activist who became a leading figure among vaccine skeptics. In April 2023 he launched a campaign seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for the United States presidential election of 2024 but in October announced instead that he would run as an independent."

From your perspective, by your own admission, "environmental activists are a dime-a-dozen." Probably your lack of interest in evironmentalism is the reason you never heard of him before, but he was well known.

Also, while having famous relatives does not convey WP:NOTABILITY, you are misusing a Wikipedia policy. It means that without reliable sources about a subject we cannot create an article just because they have famous relatives. But reliable sources may choose to write about someone solely because they have famous relatives. Hence, the article about Prince George of Cambridge was created before he was born or even named. It was not created because he was heir to the heir to the heir to the UK Crown, but because media covered him extensively. TFD (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the Encyclopedia Britannica uses the term "vaccine skeptics" is just an example of why tertiary sources such as it are so inferior to secondary ones. Pretty trash, honestly. Anyways, TFD, do you have a point here? Because it really just seems like you're trying to find a sideways method of promoting FRINGE nonsense by gussying it up in a different set of clothes. The usual sort of nonsense editors have to deal with being pushed constantly on pseudoscience related pages. Silverseren^C 22:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Policy does not say that tertiary sources are inferior to secondary ones. It does say, "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight."

So while the article should be based on secondary sources, tertiary sources should tell us what emphasis to place on various aspects of the topic.

Saying that RFK Jr is a prominent environmental lawyer before saying he promotes vaccine disinformation is not a promotion of fringe theories. It's merely placing emphasis on what reliable sources find most important over what you find most important. TFD (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Siver seren. And: don't use your random assumptions about other editors as reasoning for or against edits. I do not have a lack of interest in evironmentalism. I live in another country than Kennedy, where we have different environmentalists. We also have different anti-vaxxers, but Kennedy's anti-vax actions give him a global notoriety. Also, phrases like "your perspective" cut both ways. Maybe you want the US to get the monarchy back, with the Kennedys as the Royal Family, but Prince George of Cambridge is still whataboutism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Whenever I provide links to arguments I use, I explain their relevance. Policy says that a person's family connections do not establish notability, which is the requirement for creating an article about a person. However notability is established by "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time [in reliable sources.]

IOW, policy allowed the creation of an article about Prince George not because of his family but because there had been extensive ongoing coverage of him in reliable sources. Had this coverage not existed, then an article would violate policy. But we cannot secon

No idea what the whataboutism issue is. I provided an example of how policy was applied in a high profile article. This is not a case of an obscure article that may or may not follow policy.

Your speculation that I want to see Kennedy crowned as king of the U.S. is bizarre. But it's not bizarre that you say environmentalists are a dime a dozen. Even your comment that you are "mainly interested in science and pseudoscience" shows a bias. You are focusing on your area of interest rather than using the weight provided in reliable sources. RFK Jr. is not a single issue candidate and in fact has underplayed his conspiracism which in turn has led to it receiving less attention than you would like in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Another rs (U.S. News and World Report): RFK Jr. "the son of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy...and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy – is an author and a trial lawyer who specialized in environmental law early in his career. He has emerged over the last decade and a half as a leading voice of the anti-vaccine movement."[https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/who-is-running-for-president-in-2024]

I found some sources by the way that mention his anti-vax position immediately after his family connections, such as the NYT: "a nephew of former President John F. Kennedy, is a prominent anti-vaccine activist." But notice that unlike this article it is written in a neutral tone with no mention of conspiracism or misinformation. That is because the anti-vax position is by definition conspiracist and misinformative and the NYT sees no need to lecture their readers. TFD (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You keep talking about me and about supposed shortcomings of mine. Maybe that works when you are a lawyer in court and the judge is a simpleton, but it does not work on Wikipedia where we have WP:FOCUS. I tried to satirize that with my Kennedy royalty remark, but apparently that went right over your head. I will stop engaging with your whataboutism and wikilawyering now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, you accuse me of talking about you but in the same post accuse me of lacking focus, lacking a sense of humour, lacking the intelligence to understand your posts, whataboutism and wikilawyering. It would be helpful if instead of making vague accusations you replied to the various points I brought up.

I am bemused by your comparison with a courtroom. In trials, lawyers present evidence, interpret rules and make arguments based on them, which is exactly what we do on talk pages. "You're an arsehole!" is not a valid argument in court, but it shouldn't be one here either.

Also, articles are supposed to be written in a way that readers cannot know their authors' personal views. I notice that you and a few other editors seem to openly express your position on RFK Jr's candidacy. Not good. TFD (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

TFD, have you really thought through the implications of that comment? Yes, readers of articles should not sense that they are reading the opinions of an editor, rather than the opinions and POV found in a RS. Very true. The disconnect comes when you then proceed to comment on what happens on talk pages. All editors have opinions. (Wow!) We are allowed, within reasonable limits, to express them on talk pages and user pages. In fact, it is more problematic when editors hide their opinions, and their editing reveals their political bias. It's better for editors to be open with each other so editors can caution each other when their editing might tend to show their own POV. It happens, it's very human, and it isn't intentional, so we should all be thankful when another editor civilly cautions us to make sure the opinion in our edit is coming from a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will bite. I was always talking about your methods of reasoning, with is on topic. You were talking about your assumptions about my motivation, which is off topic.

Now you added straw men to those methods: I did not accuse you of lacking focus, I not even accused your contributions of lacking focus, though I could have, as they do. "Lacking a sense of humour and intelligence" are your faulty deductions from what I wrote. Whataboutism and wikilawyering are, again, descriptions of your methods of reasoning. There is good and bad reasoning, and I am allowed to point out that your reasoning is bad. Speculating about my supposed lack of interest, on the other hand, is argumentum ad hominem. It's not that difficult.

But all this not your fault. You are forced to use bad reasoning if you want to defend Kennedy, because there are no good reasons in his defense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This article always describes RFK Jr's other activites before describing his current occupation peddling ant-vaccine and conspiracy theory disinformation.

• The lede sentence puts his current occupations at the end of the sentence after his other activities.
• The lede section puts them in the final paragraph.
• In the body of the article, the Career section does not mention his current career, not even his job running CHD.
• His current career is saved for another section much further along, after non-career sections "Political views" and "Political aspirations". (Although the "views" section does touch on the matter.)

The complaint alleging this article does not prominently showcase RFK Jr.'s other career activities has zero merit. That his current activities are anti-vax misinformation and conspiracy theories is well-sourced, in addition to consistent with his work output. The only point that has made sense in this discussion is that the article doesn't mention a recent court decision in the Roundup cases. -- M.boli (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I presume the allegation that Jr. is the object of a smear campaign is irony? RFK Jr. writes whole books filled with smears and conspiracy theories. -- M.boli (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Overloading the opening lede sentence might be laying it on a tad bit too thick. There's already a full paragraph in the opening talking about his anti-vaccine activism, and it fits there better. The opening sentence is to introduce the subject, not be its own mini-lede itself. This is how the article was organized until recently. MOS:LEADSENTENCE warns against overloading opening sentences. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The opening sentence does in many ways act as a mini-lead, since the notable activities and occupations should presumably receive further explanation later in the lead. I would favor steps to shorten the opening sentence—for instance, by placing alternative names in a footnote—but I would not support removing his vaccine and public health—related activities. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I implemented the above suggestion and put the alt names in a foot note. I also bundled the citations more. The opening sentence is still long, but not unmanageable. I would not describe it as "overloaded". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This person's views on vaccines has been well known long before he ran for office and it is a major aspect of his biography.[2] The accusations about election interference and Wikipedia working with Monsanto lack merit and I normally do not feed the trolls but I want to talk to this directly. On Wikipedia I have found that the people who make the biggest accusations about bias end up being the ones who are actually trying to push the strongest point of view. You can review the old version of the aricle and the only thing that has changed in the five years since this vaccine misinformation was known is that it has become a popular conspiracy theory. The popular conspiracy theory ends up being pushed by biased editors and it ends up wasting a lot of time for Wikipedians who try to base information on reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Jorahm (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

In Canada he's viewed as the poster boy of American misinformation.Mostrous, Alexi (2020). "How a Kennedy became a 'superspreader' of hoaxes on COVID-19, vaccines, 5G and more". The Globe and Mail. So much so that universities in Canada teach about this."The Anti-Vaccine Propaganda of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr". Office for Science and Society - McGill university. 2021. Take-home message. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is one of the main activists of the modern anti-vaccination movement. The movie his corporation recently produced, Medical Racism: The New Apartheid, mixes real examples of racism in healthcare and vaccine misinformation to push an anti-vaccine agenda on marginalized communities of colour Moxy🍁 02:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You cannot generalize from two articles published in Canadian publications how Canadians view him. My guess is that very few Canadians know very much about him other than that he is a Kennedy. Anyway, Americans don't care what Canadians or anyone else thinks about their presidents, which is obvious from whom they have elected in living memory. TFD (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Odd comment...should not dismiss more educated countries media and academic community POV on your guesswork. We talk about him in an academic sence and cover him in our news alot[3]. Most universities in Canada have subjects about him related to both environmental and misinformation topics. He has also done university and event tours in Canada that makes the news. [4]. Moxy🍁 15:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Canadians have a wide range of political views. TFD (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• The lead seems to be OK including first phrase. Yeh. My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Science cannot "Disprove" -- Need to remove this wording

In the last paragraph of the introduction, it mentions that science has "disproven" the idea that vaccines cause autism. Science can only prove something in the positive. It can never prove something in the negative. This wording needs to be changed to something along the lines of "repeated and peer reviewed scientific study on the relationship between vaccines and autism shows no correlation between them." 2601:8C:4980:5E10:65B1:E0B0:967F:E203 (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. The reified "Science" you refer to is actually the work of researchers who test hypotheses. A tested hypothesis is supported if there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. "Science" never proves anything in the positive, it only fails to find contradictory evidence. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

And sometimes it is even possible to disprove things: for example some diet proponents claimed their diets affected human energy expenditure, but by using metabolic chambers it was possible to show they had no such effect. However, in evidence-based medicine (unlike pure logic) absence of evidence sort of does mean evidence of absence, and that understanding is reflected on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

The opening overview of RFK can be seen by some as biased and doesn't appear to support a neutral point of view. His "anti-vax" POVs should be listed in a different section with his other beliefs and stances rather than being used as a tool to make a bad first impression based on a quick Google search. Mentioning those specific beliefs in that fashion shines a light on a certain perspective and belief system that can appear one-sided and biased. Austinjs xvi (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)i

Nicole Shanahan page

On a different subject, can a Wikipedia page be added for Nicole Shanahan, future VP for Robert F. Kennedy. He promises to announce in eight days on Tuesday in Oakland, her hometown. People will be checking in here. AstroU (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Only if she's notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Evidently, she is: Nicole Shanahan. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That was fast. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Candidate Kennedy announces his VP pick tomorrow, Thursday, in Shanahan's hometown, Oakland, CA. -- AstroU (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding arguably biased use of "American politician" as a descriptive

Why is it that Wikipedia calls RFK, Jr. "an American politician", despite never running for any political office before, but Jimmy McMillan of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party is merely a "political activist", despite running for multiple political offices before, on an arguably more serious platform, with no embracing of conspiracy theories?

Pretty sure that's just institutional racism, or yet another inexperienced, incompetent rich white guy, failing upwards.

Is RFK, Jr. really "an American politician", despite having absolutely no political experience and having never been a politician at any time in his life? Pretty sure the obvious answer is "not yet." In fact, I suspect he has repeatedly bragged about not being a politician.

Instead, it seems fair to refer to RFK, Jr. as an activist, or even a "political activist" as Mr. McMillan is referred to, or, if he loses and runs again, as a "perennial candidate". But overstepping this IS likely a case of white entitlement.

He was a former radio talk show host, as shown in his history. Why was that removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.169.134 (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

He is running now, making him a politician. Regarding that other guy, go to the article about him.

And read WP:TALK - this page is not for speculation about editors' motivation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2024

this is misinformation, RFK is not a conspiracy theorist or anti-vaccine. multitudes of evidence have been provided to show that the Covid "vaccine" had negative health side effects. that is the only "vaccine" that RFK does not support. by calling him anti-vaccine you are spreading misinformation because the covid "vaccine" was not actually a vaccine at all, but a mRNA modifier. also calling him a conspiracy theorist is an inherently biased statement, as well as a pathetic excuse for a fact. calling him a conspiracy theorist is not a truth, but instead a sad excuse for name-calling. 208.84.138.13 (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the FAQ at the top of this page EvergreenFir (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Pejorative information in RFK Jr's page

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.

---

The descriptions of Robert F Kennedy Jr on this page are pejorative and highly biased. It's well below the standard of an objective platform like Wikipedia. That he has been accused by some (of "misinformation, etc.) is a matter of fact, but using those accusations to define him on this page smacks of subjectivity. Wikipedia should not be a place where people are cancelled and blacklisted. This reduces public trust in the authenticity of the platform. Jonbeyrer (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) — Jonbeyrer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Could not agree more! Well said. 2600:8807:C951:AC00:3DA4:D440:DD40:F40 (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2024 (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.

Misrepresentation of 2023 RFC

Some editors have cited a 2023 RFC that concluded: This close finds no consensus with regards to solution three (delaying the content under discussion)—viable arguments were raised against the information being delayed later than the end of the first paragraph. Ending the first sentence after "writer" remains a very viable option. to state that a definite determination has been made on whether activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation belongs in the first sentence. This is inaccurate.

Rather, the RFC concluded that the (accurate and well-sourced) statement that including anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories belongs in the lead of the page. Those are two different things. Ending it at the first paragraph inaccurately implies that the other conspiracy theories he has promoted are at least plausible. (Which they're not.) It's also stylistically awkward and attempts to summarize his entire career (even pre-2005) as simply being conspiracy theories. (Which is also incorrect.)

Kennedy Jr.'s page and persona is remarkably similar to that of Naomi Wolf, who started off as a mainstream feminist writer until the 2010s, in which she started to promote conspiracy theories (including surrounding COVID-19) and other insane assertions. Her page's first sentence lists her as a conspiracy theorist (correctly) and then leaves it at that before listing the theories that she has promoted in its third and fourth paragraph. The same case should apply here.

As multiple seasoned editors have objected to the change (including TFD, me, and others). I made a comprehensive improvement to the article that changed his description to "conspiracy theorist" and expanded what conspiracy theories he has promoted since 2005. This seems much more reasonable to me. For individuals who originally became famous/well-known/respected for one thing, and then go, to put it nicely, "crazy", the WP: PRECEDENT seems clear. KlayCax (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr.'s occupation for two decades has been promulgating anti-vax and medical misinformation and a big assortment of conspiracy theories. He is America's most famous vaccine misinformer. Removing Jr's occupation from the first sentence is malpractice. -- M.boli (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It's more like the past decade. He made similar comments before that, but they were generally dismissed as an individual quirk. (In terms of it being a leading thing associated with him.) According to Politico and other sources, RFK was a well-respected environmentalist and lawyer until the early 2010s. (Here's one article stating it. There's many more.) He was considered for a position in a Democratic administration in 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012.

Again, this is much closer to a Naomi Wolf situation. It would be similarly wrong to summarize the first sentence of her article as: Naomi Rebekah Wolf (born 1962) is an American feminist author, journalist, and conspiracy theorist who for posting misinformation on topics such as beheadings carried out by ISIS, the Western African Ebola virus epidemic, and Edward Snowden. It's clearly a form of editorialization intended to "prime" readers. KlayCax (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, multiple seasoned editors have supported mentioning Kennedy's promotion of anti-vaccine misinformation in the first sentence, as it's so central to Kennedy's notability. Inclusion is the status quo ante that preceded the no consensus RfC finding. I don't think we need a whole RfC to change it, but I would hope to see more consensus before it's removed again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It's an important part of his identity. I wouldn't state that it's the only part of his identity that's notable, however. He was widely respected until the past decade or so for his environmental work. Heck, as I mentioned above, he was widely considered a favorite for a leadership role in a Democratic administration and had wide acclaim from environmental organizations as late as the mid-2010s. Beyond this, Kennedy Jr.'s conspiracy theories aren't limited to vaccines, but other subjects as well. It's not limited to that.

TFD was however wrong to remove conspiracy theorist from the lead (I'm assuming the RFC isn't about the first sentence. Rather, it's about whether conspiracy theorist should be claimed at all.) KlayCax (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

When Jr. announced his candidacy, most of the RS news reports ID-ed him as a prominent anti-vaxer and health conspiracy nut. I'd venture that nobody ID-ed him as once was rumored to be under consideration for a government post. His most recent five books have all been in this realm. His job for the past decade has been chairing Children's Health Defense. He makes movies and files lawsuits in this area.

Removing his anti-vax notability from the lede sentence because it is more fully described later in the lede is a strange explanation. Everything in the lede sentence is duplicative, expanded further in the lede.

Again: leaving this out of the lede sentence is malpractice. -- M.boli (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)[5] "founded Children’s Health Defense, an organization that regularly spreads anti-vaccine misinformation, and has promoted anti-vaccine conspiracy theories," (CNN)[6] "anti-vaccination activist,"(BBC News) [7] and "conspiracy theorist and vaccination opponent." (The Guardian)[8]

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)

• A or B. I'm familiar with the argument that there's a substantive difference between "is a conspiracy theorist" and "promotes conspiracy theories", but I don't see enough there to have an opinion either way. I'd normally favor the latter for brevity, but since we have "promotes ..." in the lead sentence as is, there's no real character count difference. In case it matters, I'm a fan of person-first language—though there are strong arguments against the practice—but I don't think it's commonly or appropriately applied to willfully chosen roles/jobs/activities/opinions as opposed to unchangeable characteristics born of genetics or circumstance. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• A: Looking at pages in , they all say the same. We don't say "person who advocates for change in environmental policy", we say "environmentalist" (or in Kennedy's instance, "environmental lawyer"). There's no real reason to say that he "promotes conspiracy theories" when the term "conspiracy theorist" is both more concise and used more than the former. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• A - the actual language used by our sources, by and large. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

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

I provided four examples in my vote. TFD (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)