Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2023

RFK Jr is not antivax, he himself has had vaccines. He is advocating for testing to ensure vaccine safety and more accountability from the makers of vaccines. Makers of vaccines cannot be held liable so they have no reason to ensure the safety of them. This is because of H.R.5546 - National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Which makes the taxpayers liable for irresponsible vaccine companies. Furthermore vaccines in the past precovid went through years of testing often times up to a decade or more. That has not been the case with recent vaccines being developed so there maybe unknown long term issues that are still unknown. Likely which would be affecting the cardiovascular system as we are currently seeing with myocarditis issues. Zakglove27 (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

RFK Jr. is an antivaxxer, as described by reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to move wording into another part of the lead

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.

---

This isn't a big deal either way. But it seems a bit awkward from a grammatical and stylistic point of view to list Kennedy's pseudoscientific anti-vaccine beliefs in the first sentence of the article. Even among individuals particularly known for a hideous or crazed belief surrounding a singular topic — e.g. George Wallace (Note: I'm not comparing the two. This is just an example.) — it is almost never mentioned in the first sentence of a person's page.

Does anyone object to moving the Children Defense Fund + other stuff to the third paragraph? Presently, the third paragraph is artificially separated into different parts of the article. I don't think the RFC intended this. (The original dispute seems to be predominately based upon the wording being in the lead, which I agree with, rather than position.) KlayCax (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Cannolis:. For example. We don't say: George Wallace is an American politician best known for his support of Jim Crow laws and segregation in the 1960s. It comes across as remarkably awkward sounding. KlayCax (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The second sentence of Wallace's lede says that instead. It only doesn't in the first sentence because he has another larger claim to notability, the terms he served. For now, Kennedy Jr.'s notability still is almost entirely based on his anti-vaccine views. If he wins an election, then that would be a reason to push such views back to the second sentence. Silverseren^C 04:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

RJK Jr.s profession has for along time been promulgating vaccine and health misinformation and conspiracy theories. For going on two decades. Arguably he has had more influence in his life from this part of his career. The lede paragraph would be more accurate if we move the environmental lawyer stuff out of the first sentence. Describing Kennedy first as an environment lawyer is arguably undue emphasis. -- M.boli (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Kennedy has been far more well known over the last decade and a half as an anti vaccine activist, rather than for his work as an environmental lawyer. It's clearly due in the opening part of the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Whether you agree with what he says or not. The scientific method is conclusively not FACT, though we often perceive things as fact if there is unwavering evidence, understandably so. That being said, you did not introduce yourself as a representative of a credible law firm and or an expert medical coalition, so I am going to assume you don't understand enough about medicine to be making these kinds of statements, especially in regards to a political candidate.

Describing Robert F Kennedy as an advocate of misinformation above all else is more likely akin to DISINFORMATION than fact. 64.186.25.78 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources say otherwise, so, the description as an advocate of misinformation will remain. Zaathras (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

you did not introduce yourself as a representative of a credible law firm and or an expert medical coalition, so I am going to assume you don't understand enough about medicine Funniest anonymous-IP statement of the week.

You do not understand how Wikipedia works, how expertise works or how science works. "Credible law firm" as a criterion for medical expertise - ROFL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree that it's a bit clunky but keep in mind we are not just mentioning his beliefs, we are summarizing years of anti-vaccine and health conspiracy activity. Unfortunately I can't think of a great single word for this(activist seems a bit weak), but per the RFC we cannot pretend it is not a significant portion of his notability. I don't mind moving the CHD stuff out of the first paragraph as I think that is included in "promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories", though I would move it to the 4th paragraph as I see the lead as organized into

1 first sentence

2 family background as a Kennedy

3 environmental activism

4 medical/healthcare misinformation

and feel that the CHD stuff belongs there with the other health misinformation. Not sure what you mean by the 3rd paragraph being artificially separated. Cannolis (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Something like:

Kennedy is an American lawyer, writer, and conspiracy theorist best known for his opposition to the scientific consensus on vaccination. He is an independent candidate in the 2024 presidential election. Kennedy's public health positions are rejected by medical organizations, doctors, and other medical practitioners, who have widely described his pseudoscientific claims as being harmful to public health.

Would entirely be in line with the RFC's wording. It's also extensively less clunky. Does that work? @Cannolis: @M. boli:. KlayCax (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

By "artificially separated" I meant that his anti-vaccine positions are split between two spots of the lead. (e.g. Children's Defense Fund is in first paragraph; the rest in third.) KlayCax (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't find that proposal to be much less awkward than the existing wording. Also feel that it avoids calling his activities promoting misinformation and conspiracy theories and avoids using wikivoice, both of which are appropriate to use as per the RFC and the vast majority of RS. Cannolis (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

let me preface by saying i'm vaxxed and boosted and all that. However, calling somebody an anti-vaxxer to me is biased and loaded political language not to be used in content on wikipedia. Moreover, In this case, it seems that the page is intended in some way to discredit the candidate in his upcoming election. Ensuring people see he's an 'antivaxxer' in the wiki meta-description on page 1 of Google seems it may be coming from a conflict of interest and is too precarious to be ignored. The simple solution is to just take it out as it's far too controversial to include at this time considering political biases.

And if you do say 'scientific consensus,' it must be noted that 14.8% of scientists have deliberately rejected a vaccine even though it was recommended. citation . And considering the issues with tuskegee and the pharmaceutical industry pushing opiates, being labeled anti-vaxxer when your goal is to make sure that all medicine receives thorough and honest trial seems to be a bit of a pigeonhole.

Considering all these factors, I charge that Wikipedia should recognize that allowing a charged and biased term to define an independent political candidate on the first page of google in an upcoming election conflicts with the interests of the site. The solution would be to leave this information out of the first sentence, rewording it, and moving it to a later part of the article so that Wikipedia does not serve as a political tool for any candidate.

Jacob Kennedyjacob94 (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

As well, let it be seen that his work as an environmentalist was not cited in the first sentence, but news stories about his being an antivaxxer made the cut? No stories cited about the work he did in the Hudson in that section.

All of this furthers the point that the way this piece is structured injects bias and conflict of interest into the article. Kennedyjacob94 (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Calling someone who is the long-term chairman of an organisation that peddles anti-vaccination propaganda an "anti-vaxxer" is not even slightly controversial. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

i'm vaxxed Irrelevant. This is not a forum.

calling somebody an anti-vaxxer to me is biased and loaded political language So, you want to suppress the truth. You want censorship of facts. Wikipedia does not do that. See WP:NOTCENSOR.

it must be noted that 14.8% of scientists Private decisions are not necessarily based on scientific facts, and "scientists" does not only include experts on medicine, it also includes experts on crystal structure of minerals, or on tropical storms, or on a lot of other things that are not connected with vaccines. The vast majority of scientists are laypeople regarding vaccines. The statistic you cite was restricted to biologists and medical scientists, but it still does not invalidate the consensus for the same reason, and because consensus is based on results of research, not on polls. Opinions are not a source of truth, they are something that scientists take great care to prevent from influencing the results, for instance by double-blinding.

considering the issues with tuskegee and the pharmaceutical industry pushing opiates Yeah, let's disbelieve all scientists because some of them are assholes. By the same reasoning, you should attack every human on sight.

all medicine receives thorough and honest trial Kennedy is not competent to decide whether that is the case. If Kennedy called something "a thorough and honest trial", the smart thing would be to check it very closely because it is probably fraudulent.

his work as an environmentalist Anti-vaxxer has been his job for twenty years now. It is more important. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

“So, you want to suppress the truth. You want censorship of facts.”

I would argue that is what YOU want.

“Kennedy is not competent to decide whether that is the case. If Kennedy called something "a thorough and honest trial", the smart thing would be to check it very closely because it is probably fraudulent.”

What makes you more competent to decide than Kennedy? I'd argue that your clear biased opinion in the above quote makes you less qualified.

“Yeah, let's disbelieve all scientists because some of them are assholes”

So what's the alternative? Believing all scientists even though we are aware they could be assholes? Ie acting out of corporate interest instead of public interest.

“Anti-vaxxer has been his job for twenty years now. It is more important.”

This is an opinion formed on a bias. It is not to be stated as a fact.

I have read the WP:NPOV page this morning. This article obviously is not neutral in tone, that's not even debatable. Wikipedia chooses to publish the mainstream/popular consensus/opinion from attributable

sources and leaves out criticisms or disputes because of its nature as an encyclopedia. I feel that the current structure of the RFK JR article does align with the mainstream consensus. But that mainstream consensus potentially lacks a basis in hard truthful scientific evidence, and is based on “trusting” the current institutions and agencies are acting in your best interest before their own https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6453680/#:~:text=With%20a%20scientific%20consensus%20overwhelmingly,for%20many%20health%20care%20workers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280342/

There's just two .gov links I grabbed quick, if you have links to refute my position please send them. Otherwise I'd be interested in discussing the original proposal of moving the wording in the lead. Msnhvd (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody bothered to read the references before tossing them into a talk page post and saying nyah! Quelle surprise.

1. One reference is to an opinion article by a philosopher discussing in general terms the issue of public trust in science. She says that simply appealing to expertise doesn't work, it doesn't persuade people enough. There should be better ways to overcome the epistemic distrust.
2. The other reference is a study showing that mercury from thiomersal is flushed out of the body and brain much faster than from methylmercury. The conclusion is thiomersal is safer than previously believed, since the estimate of thiomersal's mercury impact came from extrapolating from methylmercury.

Both references are not salient to the question at hand, viz: describing RFK Jr.'s shosen professional occupation in the lede sentence of his Wikipedia article.

I note that reference #2 runs counter to the anti-vaccine hysteria that Jr. promotes. And is pretty much irrelevant in the U.S.A. Thiomersal is barely used nowadays, only in a vaccine which isn't given to young children.

But in any case nobody is going to entertain a debate on vaccine safety on a Wikipedia talk page. The question at hand is RFK Jr.'s notability and occupation. As a factual matter Jr. promotes anti-vax misinformation and health-related conspiracy theories. That's his chosen occupation. Nothing written above changes that. -- M.boli (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the question is, is he the head of an anti-vaxxer company, or a vaccine safety advocacy company? Both are equally valid truth. But anti vaxxer is a highly charged political term used to discredit people. The implication of the word implies too much bias and a conflict of interest 97.115.111.109 (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

One suspects that a genuine "vaccine safety advocacy company" (whatever one of those might be) would not feel the necessity to spend most of its time spreading misinformation and outright falsehoods (i.e. that vaccines cause autism). Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Ya bjt it doesnt seem their incorrect information is purposely false. Some of their research has validity. You wouldnt put in the first sentence for fox news that they are a news entertainment company who spreads misinformation would you? They do that surely, but it’s not their primary service or objective. 97.115.111.109 (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I looked and there doesn't seem to be peer reviewed evidence of vaccines being unsafe. Not here to prove that. Bringing up tuskegee doesn't discredit all science (fallacy). It brings up the fact that hesitancy towards government initiatives in terms of medicine is reasonable, especially in the case of black people in this country. And most of what he's done if you look at all the sources in the past couple years is more about preventing mandate policies and investigating government sponsored pharmaceutical projects rather than telling everybody to never trust scientists because all science is bad.

Just pointing out that wiki openly giving its opinion on that matter and calling someone an antivaxxer is too politically turbulent and motivated to belong on the top of our page explaining a complex independent presidential candidate who is at this time, if looking at his propaganda on instagram and all other channels, talking mostly about anti-corporate policy. Just checking his last twenty posts, about 5% of the content even mentioned the vaccine and none of it asserted vaccine dangers.

His competency and all that can be discussed later on. His chosen occupation is to be ceo of a company designed to inform people on many fringe subjects. That company's specific ideologies and articles can easily be discussed farther down the page.

Lastly, i think the mainstream is actually based in science. However, just because the mainstream disagrees with this point of his on vaccines, doesn't mean that he should be defined by his falsehood within the first sentence on wikipedia. Kennedyjacob94 (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It brings up the fact that hesitancy [..] is reasonable This page is about improving the article, and the article is about Kennedy, not about reasonableness or otherwise of attitudes. Tuskegee is simply irrelevant here. Will you please finally read WP:NOTFORUM?

preventing mandate policies Yes yes, we know, in the fight between humans and infectious diseases, he is on the side of the diseases and opposes everything that could fight them, including vaccine mandates. That is what antivaxxers do. There is no point here.

giving its opinion on that matter This is not "its opinion". It is the judgement of reliable sources, and we are forced by the rules to give the reader those. Read WP:RS. And read the archives of this Talk page. Your bad reasoning is a repetition of old bad reasoning.

Just checking his last twenty posts That is not how encyclopedias work. Read WP:OR.

inform people on many fringe subjects Misinform.

doesn't mean that he should be defined No, the fact that reliable sources have been calling him that for twenty years means he should. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You too. WP:NOTFORUM. Read it. And those Trump-like up-is-down, down-is-up claims do not work here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose making a change. This lead has been hotly contested and this rewrite doesn't seem very different to me, certainly not worth the edit storm it will incite. The fact that he is known for conspiracy myths and also heads an organization that propagandizes conspiracy myths is not a redundancy in language, it's a redundancy in his life.DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose No, as per previous discussion we should absolutely not be changing this. RFK isn't a random COVID loon; his anti-vaccine advocacy has been going on for nearly 20 years, and it's what he's best known for - indeed, it has been his profession. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed wording. Agree with above comments. A) We don't want to remove wikivoice. RJK Jr. peddles misinformation is better than peddles stuff which doctors disagree with. B) Chair of CHD is his job, his title. It would be wrong to move it. (I think he is on leave for the campaign, but still we leave it in.) C) Much of this was litigated extensively earlier.
• Oppose the usual WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support I support this change but it won't matter. WP:NPOV, WP:VOICE, and WP:BLPGOSSIP be damned. There's just too many editors willing to die on the hill of the man's perceived faults being listed in the first sentence. They know that's the only way these opinions show up in Google search results, so they will never give in. Fully addressing the concerns in the body of the article is much less important than ensuring that it's in the first two sentences.SkotyWA^T_C 22:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  What you call the man's perceived faults are literally his job, his main source of employment. It is what he does, and has been doing for quite a while. If you think his occupation is a "fault" then you are free to explain that to RFK Jr. -- M.boli (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Really? His job? Do you have a source that says he collected a paycheck for his advocacy on any of these "conspiracy theories"? Being a chairman of a non-profit does not mean he was paid (unless you have a source proving such). It was likely a service he did outside of his job (being a laywer). So you're literally making crap up here (unless you've got a source proving he was paid for his advocacy work). SkotyWA^T_C 20:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this any different from the suggestion I made two weeks earlier? It looks the same. Cmsmith93 (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Support While his outlier positions on vaccines and other topics are important, (including how it goes against scientific consensus) I think it is gratuitous POV pushing to have it be stated as it currently is in the lead. This is a political candidate in what will be a hotly contested election and how it is currently written seems to be "Politicized" by opposition campaigns. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Given the current context, the first sentence is suboptimal. It does not even mention the candidacy, which is his current main source of notability, and instead focuses (and overrefs with non-neutral sources) a negative point on the candidate. Pavloskaz (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• That "negative point" is literally his profession as the chairman of CHD. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  His current global notability stems from his presidential bid and not from chairmanship of CHD. And even that is in the second sentence. The first sentence just says “who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories”. And provides the first several references, all from politically engaged sources, just for that. The CHD reference comes after. Pavloskaz (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• We don't ignore what someone has been doing for decades just because they suddenly become notable for something else - that's WP:RECENTISM. Also, your "politically engaged" sources include Scientific American, NBC News, the Guardian, the New York Times, Associated Press and the BBC, and that's just for the lead paragraph; in the main section on his anti-vax career there are many more. Black Kite (talk) 12:42, 16 December 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2023

In the lead section,

change

“is an American politician, environmental lawyer and activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories.”

to

“is an American politician, environmental lawyer, activist and prominent anti-vaccine skeptic. Pavloskaz (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per MOS:LABEL, these terms can be used if widely used by reliable sources, which they are, as you can see in the in-line footnotes. Also per WP:VOICE and WP:DESCF, the use of Wikipedia's voice instead of in-text attribution is appropriate here as these statements are not contested by other reliable sources. Liu1126 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You should also read the FAQ at the top. In the first question-and-answer, it is clearly stated that current consensus supports the wording of this sentence. Liu1126 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The lead is a clear NPOV violation, and can ruin the credibility of Wikipedia and the article itself. MOS:LABEL explicitly states to include in-text attribution, and WP:VOICE explicitly states to avoid stating opinions as facts. The current lead is written as an opinion, so it violates all guidelines.

As proposed in the NPOV noticeboard, something like this may be possible, assuming the body is updated to support it;

"Robert F. Kennedy Jr., born in 1954, is an American environmental lawyer, writer, and anti-vaccine activist. He is the son of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy. In 2023, he announced his independent candidacy for the U.S. presidency.

Kennedy founded the Waterkeeper Alliance and has been involved in legal actions against pollution. He has garnered significant attention for his controversial views on vaccines, which have been widely criticized by scientific and medical communities." Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The current wording was decided upon by a well-attended RfC. It will not be changing anytime soon just because of a disagreeable single-purpose account. Zaathras (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who has participated in discussions earlier, so not sure who you are referring to and not sure how its relevant WP:FOC. There seems to be disagreement by other editors of the wording also in the RfC, also including the opening post here. Overall its a question if Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, or if Wikipedia is a consensus based opinion source. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It was the consensus of the editors who participated that the current wording is neutral and compliant with Wikipedia policy. There will always be squawking from outside brigaders, but they are rather irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is a consensus until it no longer isn't. I've pointed out a couple of clear policy violations, also noted by other editors in the same RfC to varying degree. Not too concerned about the article itself, but the disregard of key NPOV policies is alarming. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Your disagreement with the outcome doesn't mean there actually are policy violations here. We all know what opinions are like, after all. Zaathras (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, you are welcome to disagree, I'm only expressing my opinion as everyone else are. If most editors are fine with Wikipedia being a consensus based opinion source, then thats what it will be. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You are the only one who has the unfounded opinion that those are "opinion sources". --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Cmsmith93 (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Not really. This: If a wide range of sources state that RFK is an "activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories", then they are expressing their opinion was written later, but it confirms that Pedantic Aristotle believes that. I had probably inferred it from earlier contributions. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Eh, no, that's not how it works. At no stage have you pointed out "clear policy violations", you've only pointed out things that you don't agree with. That's not the same thing. Obviously, if you can find multiple reliable sources that back up the claims made by Kennedy and the CHD, that would of course be a different matter. NPOV doesn't mean that we include the views of everyone, no matter how extreme or false - see WP:FALSEBALANCE. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, i wrote e.g. "MOS:LABEL explicitly states to include in-text attribution". Nobody explained yet in what way that is incorrect.

When it comes to the content of the article, I never suggested it was wrong, or made any opinion on its validity. I only said it lacked attribution. I have never read anything about RFK before yesterday. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend reading more about RFK Jr if you intend to participate in meaningful discussion about the lead section - the lead summarizes the body of the article, and not being at least passingly familiar with the article makes it difficult to give informed opinions on how things should be weighted. I will also refer you to WP:VOICE, specifically "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." If you're not disagreeing that RFK Jr promotes antivaccine misinformation and health conspiracy theories, which per the prior RFC is supported by the vast majority of RS and editors, then these terms are not contentious and should be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Cannolis (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record, this edit request is also related to a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Robert F. Kennedy Jr. non-neutral lead section. Liu1126 (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm only expressing an opinion on NPOV. If a wide range of sources state that RFK is an "activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories", then they are expressing their opinion. Assuming its true, they would be expressing their opinion of the fact.

Since there is nothing written about who has stated this, I can make no evaluation of its credibility. I could paraphrase the lead to "Wikipedia believes that RFK is an activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories". It does not read as something credible, which is unfortunate as it appears to be factually correct when taking a closer look. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sophistry and word games, pretending there is a metaphysical grounding problem. -- M.boli (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is that the phrasing is not a good choice, and I provided an explanation why. Its fine if you don't agree. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the way Wikipedia works by necessity. Providing inline attribution for non-contentious statements would create a huge amount of worthless bloat that would waste the time of both readers and editors. Providing links to the sources cited is sufficient for people to make their evaluations of credibility, recommend you do so. Cannolis (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The content being discussed is contentious by its very nature, and has resulted in contention Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

And that contention has already happened and is refuted in the archives. You are beating a dead horse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

People who do not think it is credible will not think it is credible, no matter whether it is attributed or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Questions regarding video...

Hey guys so I want to make more suggestions to improve this article, but there's so many policies and guidelines to work within, and I have to get approval from certain editors and the admin's, so I'm trying to get a better idea of how to go about my suggestions.

How do I get video in here? If it's a video of RFK Jr talking in an interview, or giving a speech, it seems to be ok per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links. Things do get confusing when I read this article though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources , so what would qualify here on Wikipedia and this RFK Jr article as a 'reliable source'? Could I get some examples of what to suggest and what sources not to pull content from? Cmsmith93 (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Request expansion of 2024 presidential campaign section.

Two things here.

1. Could someone take it out of the Political Aspirations section, so it'll be == Political aspirations == and then later on == Presidential campaign (2023–present) ==

2. Add this verbiage under the new Presidential campaign (2023-present) section: "In December 2023, Kennedy was polling 19.3% in general election polls against Trump and Biden." https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden-vs-kennedy

And for clarity, I got that 19.3% by taking his Quinnipiac, Harvard-Harris, and Rasmussen Reports numbers, adding them up, and dividing by three to get an average, which actually came out to 19.33.... Cmsmith93 (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Er, no. That's synthesis, and you've cherry-picked 3 of the polls. Relating the actual figures would be OK (i.e. "Kennedy was polling between 6% and 22%"). Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Which poll says 6% for "December"? Cmsmith93 (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I see what you're saying. How about then, "Kenney was polling between 16% and 22% in December of 2023." Cmsmith93 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, sorry, that was a typo - "between 16% and 22%". Don't forget to source it. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Though, if you're going to do that, it needs to be updated in January, February etc. Actually, I wonder if it would be better off in the election article rather than this one. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah I did a typo as well. Kennedy*

  I'll source it, but could you elaborate a bit on that? Do you want me to type up that rev 'link' /rev thing or something else? -- I can't edit this article so I just put the link. Otherwise I would've given it my best effort to make the changes. Wait I think I know what you mean. Instead of using the Real Clear Politics link, you want me to get three links; a link to the Quinnipiac poll, a link to the Harvard-Harris poll, and a link to the Rasmussen Reports poll? Is that accurate?

  I think an update every month, or every other month would be good to keep things up-to-date as campaigns, elections, polls are pretty dynamic. Honestly I think putting poll numbers in both articles would be great since polls are such a significant part, just like the viewpoints breakdown. I noticed Nikki Haley's page mentions the polling numbers. Vivek Ramaswamy's doesn't. I'm going to head over to his page and request a similar edit -- that recent polls be included.

  Thanks for the help/guidance Black Kite. I think this will be a good update/improvement for the article. Cmsmith93 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Bump,

  Could someone make those changes/updates when they get a chance?

  The change regarding 1 above and about 2, me and Black Kite concluded the following...

  Kennedy was polling between 16% and 22% in December of 2023. https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden-vs-kennedy Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

“Misinformation”

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)

No. See the FAQ at the top of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

FAQ explains why these things are stated but not why they are in the first sentence. Drsruli (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

The rumors you heard somewhere cannot be used as basis for articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources? Cmsmith93 (talk) 23:00, 19 January 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do they? I checked the archives for "RSP", and people use it

• to defend AP News, NBC, Daily Beast, National Review, Politico, SBM
• to reject Rolling Stone
• to explain where to go if one deems a source unreliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

See WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems off topic and bad faith. Could you clarify? Cmsmith93 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Correction:

"has used that reasoning multiple times; in the RfC,..." Cmsmith93 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

"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)

See Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign#Affiliation. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. - JonathanCross (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  Nevertheless, seems to me that discussions here are closed and archived quickly. (Even after only a few days.) As you say, let's at least keep them for a month, then. Drsruli (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add his greatest accomplishments to the opening biography.

"He has assisted several indigenous tribes in Latin America and Canada in successfully negotiating treaties protecting traditional homelands."

• Leading the fight to protect the Hudson River. In the early 1980s, Kennedy helped to found Riverkeeper, an environmental organization that works to protect the Hudson River and its watershed. Kennedy has been a vocal critic of polluters, and he has helped to secure numerous legal victories that have protected the river.
• Filing lawsuits against major corporations. Kennedy has filed numerous lawsuits against major corporations, including ExxonMobil, Shell, and DuPont. These lawsuits have helped to raise awareness of the environmental impact of these companies, and they have also led to some positive changes in corporate practices.
• Advocating for a clean energy future. Kennedy is a strong advocate for a clean energy future. He has spoken out against the use of fossil fuels, and he has promoted the development of renewable energy sources. Kennedy has also worked to raise awareness of the impact of climate change, and he has called for action to address this issue.

KennedyHarris92 (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

References

You would need to provide reliable sources to prove the claim of notability. And climateone.org ain't it. Zaathras (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2024

Change "activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation[1][2][3][4] and public health conspiracy theories" to "activist who questions current mainstream public health narratives and challenges the corporate agenda behind vaccines."

Reason: The other lead is just a clear character assassination and is opinion as most people are now divided on the issue of vaccines especially after covid when the mrna ones proved completely ineffective and more information is coming out daily about people being harmed by them. You do not want to be peddling CIA language like "conspiracy theories" which are simply meant to silence their detractors. A bio is supposed to be objective and your language is incredibly derisive and is meant to cause harm and disrepute. Source: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-F-Kennedy-Jr, https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-jr-town-hall-vaccine-trump-russia-ukraine-democrat/ Popotnica (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does the lead keep getting changed?

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree that this is an improvement. Drsruli (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. SkotyWA^T_C 03:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m starting to perceive your narrative, as well. Drsruli (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. SkotyWA^T_C 01:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

evenhanded treatment You should read WP:FALSEBALANCE.

I'm so evil You should read Straw man. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE makes no points about how things should be included in the lead. Further, I've been very clear that these should be explored fully in the article.

It's funny you're encouraging me to read about strawman arguments since I was responding to your accusations of trying to creat a conspiracy theory funded but Big Pharma.

You're good at quoting WP scripture to make people go away. At some point I'll sit down and go through the sources being cited to support inclusion in the lead with a fine toothed comb and provide reputable counter sources or direct responses from the subject of the article. I just haven't had time (maybe someone beats me to it). SkotyWA^T_C 22:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"Evenhanded treatment" is what WP:FALSEBALANCE explains we should not have. The conclusion that we should not have evenhanded treatment in the lead is left as an exercise for the reader.

The Big Pharma barb was sarcasm. This article has been under attack from quackery fans (who love to use that one) for years. And tu quoque is another nice article.

At some point I'll Please do. Maybe you will find a valid reason why the desciption should not be in the first sentences. Until then, I guess it will stay there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

ad hominem is a nice article I'd recommend you take a look at good sir. Also, I don't really think I'm evil. Pity the sarcasm was lost in your response. SkotyWA^T_C 01:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

"misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" are both opinionated descriptions. Since Wikipedia is fact based, I urge the first paragraph should remove those two phrases

"misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" are both opinionated descriptions. Since Wikipedia is fact based, I urge the first paragraph should remove those two phrases. 172.56.96.30 (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry don't know why that got written twice. 172.56.96.30 (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Instead of "activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories."

May I suggest: "activist who promotes anti-vaccine measures citing public health concerns." 172.56.96.30 (talk) 05:11, 2 February 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2024

185.48.128.216 (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Political Party We the People Party (2024-present) Independent (2023-2024) Democratic Party (until 2023)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 11:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The request was clear, it is adding "We the People Party" to the Political Party in the infobox. However the request is at odds with the news reporting. The sources tell us that the campaign is registering "We the People" parties in several states to obtain ballot access. In most other states Kennedy is filing as an independent. -- M.boli (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

Remove…

“Kennedy's political rhetoric often uses conspiracy theories.”

…this is an opinion some people may have but, it is not a fact. Also, the use of the word “often” as generally understood and accepted academically, implies that Mr. Kennedy’s uses conspiracy theories in roughly 80% of his political rhetoric. That is not factual and/or proved by the three articles the author who added this information use as citations. 72.49.107.171 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

LOL doesn't even respond to the poster's valid point. No explanation. Nothing. Just marks NOT DONE What the heck is that? 173.88.83.158 (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"Read the FAQ at the top of the page." Is that better? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

References

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)

RFK Jr doesn't appear to be mentioned in any of those sources. Silverseren^C 23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Should be some sort of disclaimers for Americans about non-medical government agencies. Moxy- 02:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

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. SkotyWA^T_C 03:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Only if you have sources about the person. Silverseren^C 03:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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? SkotyWA^T_C 03:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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. Silverseren^C 03:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Users are not coming in to whitewash. They are coming in to tell camping editors to update the info based on new information. If new information contradicts the old, no matter how you personally feel about the man, that old info has to go. JjLi Li (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The two proffered references do exactly zero to rehabilitate RFK Jr.'s conspiracy theories. The CNN article emphatically does not support the notion that a government agency says Covid was "likely a lab leak." That's the headline, the text of the CNN article pretty much contradicts it. The Nature article does not support the notion that Anthony Fauci was doing evil things to get rich.

In theory we could use those references in this article. They would reinforce the point that Jr. pushes weakly grounded conspiracy theories.

But generally speaking we refuse to engage with conspiracy theories. The request to "update the info" amounts to a request to debate Jr.'s conspiracy theories in the pages of Wikipedia. Which tends to lend credence to them, and is a fool's errand anyway. RFK Jr. peddles putrid bilgewater, the reliable sources tell us so, it is best to leave it at that. -- M.boli (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Does this article even discuss lab leak? Bon courage (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2024

Change “who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation” to “who promotes publicly controversial views on vaccines”. Abarr2005 (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

No, see Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./FAQ above. --Julius Senegal (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 February 2024 -- Formatting Issue

In "Political Aspirations", the line beginning with "Kennedy first considered running for political office" has an extra space between "New York" and "Senator" causing the second half of the sentence to be displayed as a block quote. Breadispain (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It was broken by the last edits to the page. I fixed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding use of term Conspiracy Theory

RFK is labeled as a conspiracy theorist. specifically that he promotes public health conspiracy theories.

When I click on the term "conspiracy theory" the wiki page says that a "conspiracy theory is a conspiracy (per wiki a conspiracy: "is a secret plan or agreement between people (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder, treason, or corruption, especially with political motivation, while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it... The term generally connotes, or implies, wrongdoing or illegality on the part of the conspirators, as it is commonly believed that people would not need to conspire to engage in activities that were lawful and ethical, or to which no one would object.") by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation."

My question essentially is why are we saying he fits that description? just because he promotes false information does not mean he is a conspiracy theorist. wouldn't that require, per the wiki definition of the word, proving he is doing it with malintent, secretively, for an unlawful or harmful purpose while performing wrongdoing or illegal activities? Such has been done with Alex Jones in court recently.

Are we only using that term because sources are using that term? If thats so and thats just how wiki operates, I'd like to understand. 2603:6011:2C00:3C5:24F6:9449:D06F:8CEE (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia follows WP:Reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

A conspiracy theorist accuses other people of conspiratorial behavior. Kennedy tells stories that other people conspire to act secretly with bad intent. Two of his most recent books, e.g., are devoted to conspiracy theories regarding government health officials and regarding the source of the COVID-19 virus. Reliable sources tell us that RFK Jr. is a conspiracy theorist. And if you are interested his conspiracy theories are easy to find. -- M.boli (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I gotcha. Yeah, I'm aware of his theories but it was more proof of illegality/malintent for the sake of gain that I was unsure if were necessary. 2603:6011:2C00:3C5:24F6:9449:D06F:8CEE (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The article does not say that he is a conspiracy theorist but says he promotes conspiracy theories. Similarly, the article on G.W. Bush says he was fined for drunk driving but does not label him a criminal. The article on Bill Clinton does not even mention that he smoked marijuana, which was illegal at the time, let alone call him a criminal.

The Wiki definition does not say that people promote conspiracy theories for gain. In fact, believing in conspiracy theories is harmful to most people. TFD (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2024

Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist, but “misinformation” should be removed from his description. There is no proof of misinformation on his behalf. Instead, he is using science and questioning the vaccine for the benefit and well being of all human life, not to hurt anyone, but help people. He is not spreading misinformation but instead just raising healthy questions that bring accountability to a very unaccountable sect of government and corporate elites. 2600:6C44:657F:6255:4140:2470:7E51:AE4F (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the FAQ at the top of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2024

Change the word "misinformation" to "information" in the first paragraph. It is clearly biased by Wikipedia if you say that he promotes misinformation. You can't state as a fact that someone promotes misinformation. No one willingly promotes misinformation. RFK Jr and his people surely believe they are promoting just information. 2603:8001:9500:2CBD:C1BF:7AC:1CE5:7A26 (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Jamedeus (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Read misinformation and disinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2024

The statement that Robert Kennedy Jr spreads anti vaccine misinformation is misinformation. He and all his kids are vaccinated. He only said that he would is pro research and he would rather them have done more research before releasing to the public. Please change this immediately to Robert F. Kennedy has doubts about the covid vaccines effectiveness. Or something along those lines. 71.86.137.163 (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done pls review the sources in the article and previous discussions about.Moxy🍁 15:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, then next time, provide an answer. You revert it, you own it. Zaathras (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the request, which, as this talk page history has shown, is not the prevailing view here so my response would have had to be supporting a point-of-view that I'm in disagreement with (which I don't do on Wikipedia). My revert of your brisk deletion was so the request would get a proper answer and not just be deleted without an explanation being given to the concerned editor. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

However, Kennedy was spreading vaccine misinformation well before COVID was a thing [1], so the request isn't even completely relevant. Black Kite (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not just about COVID-19. Kennedy is not "pro research", he is "pro-all-sorts-of-research-which-confirms-his-opinions-even-if-it-has-been-proven-to-be-fraudulent" and "anti-every-other-sort-of-research". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:44, 11 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

Since when is Wikipedia the arbiter of truth?

In the section entitled HIV/AIDS denialism, there are phrases such as "repeats the false HIV/AIDS denialist claim...", "repeats the false claim that the early AIDS drug AZT...", and "Dan Wilson points out that Kennedy falsely claims...". These sentences should simply read "RFK claims x,y, and z". Using language like "falsely claims" leads one to believe that it is obvious that such claims are false, rather than disputed. State the claim and then, if you are so inclined, state the counter-arguments and cite your sources. The only sources actually cited here are RFK's own book and a YouTube video by Dan Wilson. Is Dan Wilson considered a reliable source and why? Because he claims to have a PhD in molecular biology? He may have said degree, I haven't looked into it. Regardless, the phraseology used in this section lacks objectivity. State RFK's claims, state the counter-arguments if needed, and cite the sources. It's not that hard. Burtre26 (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Classic WP:GEVAL fallacy. Bon courage (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The key sentence here is I haven't looked into it. That sentence also applies to Kennedy's claims.

Wikipedia is not supposed to summarize what you do not know, but the knowledge of humanity. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I said I haven't looked into whether Dan Wilson has a PhD in molecular biology. I didn't say I haven't looked into any of RFK's claims. Your reading comprehension is lacking.

You failed to respond to any of my points. Go back and reread if you would like to. I don't feel the need to repeat myself. Burtre26 (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the aribter of truth. The reliable sources that note that RFK Jr's claims are false are the arbiter. Hope that clears it up. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, your reading comprehension is lacking. Your "reliable sources" are not the arbiters, either. They are in disagreement with him. You are making an appeal to authority. Because said person has said degree it makes them the arbiter of truth? The "experts" can, and often will, be wrong. I have no problem with someone providing counter-arguments. My problem is with the phraseology of "false claim." And here I said I wasn't going to repeat myself... Burtre26 (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

My reading comprehension is fine. Yours needs work. The scientific consensus is clear, and RFK Jr. is not a scientist. Until we find out AZT is fatal, which would be news to all of the people who have taken it, or that poppers cause AIDS, we'll keep identifying RFK Jr's nonsense as "false". Much like the RS do. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Burtre26 might find WP:FLAT interesting. Bon courage (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You did not say it but it is obvious that you did not. Or rather, if you have looked into them, you have not looked beyond the crazy shit. Can we stop this? Wikipedia is a science-based encyclopedia, not an opinions-of-random-people-on-the-internet-based one. See WP:RS and WP:OR- --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. This sounds like sophistry to me.

Wikipedia policies are intended to arbitrate whether or not a claim may be published in WP. Generally, if a reliable source says something, then that claim is accepted. Without such support, the claim is not accepted. But none of this is sufficient to determine what's actually true.

So we reject the conspiracy theories by observing that they have not been accepted by reliable sources. But when it comes to determining truth, it seems to me that you can't get away from the circular logic, i.e. sources which promote conspiracy theories will cease to be considered reliable sources. Fabrickator (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the rules of Wikipedia, go to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Until you have succeeded in changing them so that conspiracy theories become reliable, or so that articles are based on the opinions of random people on the internet, we will follow the current rules.

And we are not "determining truth" here, we are reflecting what reliable sources say. End of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to become defensive about this. I am not saying that anybody is doing anything wrong, I am not even asserting that there is some intentional manipulation of the rules, I am merely pointing out the limitations of this system. You are saying we are reflecting what reliable sources say. But that's the catch. How can you be sure there isn't some systematic bias by those sources which meet the criteria for being considered reliable?

And of course it's implicit that in reflecting what reliable sources say, that we're endorsing this as the basis that readers should consider the information to generally be accurate. What, Wikipedia should state that there's no reason to believe Wikipedia is generally accurate and it is just general nonsense? Of course not, then there would be no purpose in Wikipedia. But our best efforts will not enable us to fundamentally solve this problem, and it is disingenuous to insist that we can. As a matter of maintaining Wikipedia's credibility, we should be acknowledging this inherent limitation (which of course is what we do when we repeat the mantra about reliable sources). The sophistry comes in the implication that that's actually sufficient. Fabrickator (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like the WP:BIGMISTAKE. All Wikipedia is, is a handy potted version of the what reliable sources say (to save you the effort of going to the library, finding the WP:BESTSOURCES and doing the work yourself). In Galileo's time Wikipedia would have said the Earth is the centre of the universe and Galileo is a loony. Bon courage (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to become defensive about this. I don't know what that even means. It sounds like a boilerplate response I could use against you with just as much justification. So you want to chat about some systematic bias in RS. YOu should do that somewhere else because, as Jeppiz said below, this page is for improving the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. article, and your musings about hypothetical biases do not help. And cut out the "sophistry" bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is venturing into violating WP:NOTAFORUM. It is perfectly fine to discuss WP's use of sources, but the place for that discussion is the dedicated board for discussing reliable sources. This talk page is only for discussing the RFK Jr article. Jeppiz (talk) 12:00, 31 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)

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)

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.

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)

RFK is indisputably a conspiracy theorist. As EvergreenFir stated: read the FAQ. KlayCax (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Opening sentence of lead

Why does the opening sentence of this article list Kennedy as an American "politician" since he was never held public office? I would reach a consensus before I keep/remove it.@ Oluwasegu (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Per our lead on politician, A politician is a person who has political power in the government of a state, a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking an elected office in government. Emphasis added. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If he has a presidential campaign, he's a politician. He can be other things too, but politician is one of them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Kennedy is a politician. I do doubt that it will remain one of the top three or four most notable roles for him, and I suspect it'll make sense to remove it from the lead sentence. If we were hard pressed to shorten the lead sentence right now, that might be one that could go. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Information about RFKs cocaine convictions have been stripped

Before RFK ran for president there was mention about RFKs 2004 drug trafficking charges and cocaine use. You can still find reference to it on Google.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-4th-circuit/1296620.html 71.56.66.159 (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Bullshit. I find nothing in the reliable news sources. It must be a different person named Robert Kennedy Jr.

The person in that case was sentenced to 35 years imprisonment for trafficking in drugs, and then convicted of perjury. The perjury conviction was overturned on appeal, which is the document linked above. I think the document may be real, I can find it on the 4th Circuit web site. But no news articles. The person was not notable.

Furthermore, spot checking, I find no "mention" of such an incident in the archived former versions of the Wikipedia article from "before RFK ran for president". I think that claim is BS also. -- M.boli (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

And now for a real assessment of the question

What is here

In 1983, at age 29, Kennedy was arrested in a Rapid City, South Dakota airport for heroin possession after a search of his carry-on bag uncovered the drug, following a near overdose in flight. Kennedy entered a guilty plea to Presiding Judge Marshall P. Young, who sentenced him to two years' probation and 1,500 hours of community service. Following his arrest, Kennedy entered a drug treatment center and left employment as a government prosecutor.

NYT take two [2]. We also mention the marijuana possession with his cousin. I'm not sure what is being alluded to that is missing.

Moxy🍁 20:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The original post linked to a specific court document where one Robert Kennedy Jr. had been convicted in 2001 of cocaine trafficking and later of perjury pursuant to the cocaine prosecution. The poster also alleged this information had been in this article before RFK Jr. started running for president. The document is the decision voiding the perjury conviction by a panel of the 4th Circuit. That episode is not in this article, because it isn't backed up by any news reporting. It is probably a different Robt Kennedy. (Or conceivably a faked document.) Which is my "real assessment of the question."

Also note that most recent reference cited above says nothing about any 2001 (or thereabouts) drug issues. The author of that piece kind of implies that Kennedy behaves dangerously and sometimes manically, but does not allege drug use. -- M.boli (talk)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2024

Remove the word misinformation. This claim is misinformation in and of itself as there is no irrefutable evidence that there has been misinformation at all. Opinions are that. Opinions. Claims of misinformation based on opinions are just as much misinformation as the actual claim itself. 2601:681:B01:5350:ED8D:FAA5:D888:4CAC (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done WP:V is satisfied. Bon courage (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, I propose that the word should be DISinformation. Braintic (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That's more difficult to prove. Disinformation would mean that Kennedy & co actually know that the information they are peddling is untrue and are deliberately doing it for nefarious reasons, something which would probably need them to admit themselves. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Is 1RR active on this page?

I've seen multiple 1+ reverts. KlayCax (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No. It would be mentioned in the header here and in the edit notice on the article itself. The only relevant entries at WP:AELOG, the other place it would be noted, are protections of the article and this talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't sure. KlayCax (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we get you to proposed any changes to the lead here prior to doing anything..... we don't want the same problem as you have with other articles here. Moxy🍁 21:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I did above. The WP: ONUS is on why it should be included. (When a majority of users on this page currently opposite inclusion.) KlayCax (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about. Stable for months till you came by..... we're not interested in repeating the same editwars you've been blocked for multiple times. What do you believe people have agreed to? Thus far you have been reverted three times. Are you trying to say you believe conspiracy theories and misinformation is the same thing? I'm not seeing any sort of consensus above for change.Moxy🍁 23:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it was being repeatedly moved to the third paragraph by other articles per WP: LEADSENTENCE, but it kept getting reverted because people were citing the findings of the 2023 RFC. What the RFC actually said was completely different from how it was being interpreted for several months. The WP: ONUS is therefore on it being added as no agreement was ever reached. (WP: IMPLICITCONSENSUS can not be said to exist in this situation; as, it was an error.) And why did you delete his consideration from Democratic administrations in 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, when multiple news agencies state it is a notable part of his history? There's hundreds of articles about it. KlayCax (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr.'s Occupations

Occupation(s) listed as: Environmental lawyer, Writer, Anti-vaccine activist

Mr. Kennedy is a health activist, an environmental activist, and a political activist. Why does this section limit his diverse background in activism to solely reflect his Anti-vaccine activism? Seems a little biased.

In order to comprehensively represent the many facets of Mr. Kennedy's activism throughout the years, proposing this be modified to "Activist". Ksilha (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) — Ksilha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the justification for this bias? This section should either list all significant avenues of Mr. Kennedy's activism throughout his career or summarize them with the listing of "Activist". Focusing on the Anti-Vax subset of his health activism career diminishes his other efforts. Ksilha (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) — Ksilha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Read through the talk page above (and archives) and the FAQ. There you will see that since we describe him as reliable sources describe him, and your proposal is the one with bias as you don't want to conform with the sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Then I would argue that the Occupations within the summary box are out of sync with his tagline.

"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, and activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories."

The tagline acknowledges he is an Activist, and through his activism he promotes a variety of public health conspiracy theories along with Anti-Vax theories. Ksilha (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC) — Ksilha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Looks like the tagline has been changed.

"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, activist, and conspiracy theorist. He is an independent candidate in the 2024 presidential election."

I would still argue the sections are out of sync. Ksilha (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC) — Ksilha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The lead will continue to be wordsmithed but I am sure it will continue to note RFK Jr is an anti-vaxxer who engages in conspiracy theories. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I still think calling out his occupation as "Anti-vaccine activist" is a rather one-sided characterization of Mr. Kennedy's activism.

Here is a recent article from a reliable source that describes Mr. Kennedy as "an environmental and anti-vaccine activist". The article hardly touches upon his vaccine skepticism and is solely focused on his environmental activism. To list one form of activism and leave out the other is disingenuous as it paints a very one-dimensional picture of the causes he is fighting for. One could also make the claim that the effects of climate change are equally disputed in the public court of opinion as vaccine skepticism. So what is achieved by recognizing one and disregarding the other?

[3]https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/flashback-robert-f-kennedy-jr-once-called-for-koch-industries-and-exxonmobil-to-be-put-to-corporate-death ksil (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, probably because the backers of Fox News don't really care about anti-vax stuff but do really care about climate stuff... regardless, any Fox News source on politics and science is deprecated anyway and is therefore not a reliable source (WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS). Black Kite (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This is from Fox Business, but I do not see it on the list you sent. I do however see AP. This AP source describes him as follows, and I think it fairly conveys the breadth of Mr. Kennedy's advocacy efforts through the decades of his career.

"RFK Jr. built a reputation of his own as an activist, author and lawyer who fought for environmental causes such as clean water.

Along the way, his activism has veered into conspiracies and contradicted scientific consensus, most infamously on vaccines."

[4]https://apnews.com/article/who-is-robert-f-kennedy-jr-rfk-097ac973a32ddf2e8e4edecd6a8f3153 ksil (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The source is saying that Kennedy's most infamous activism is his anti-vaccine activism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps that has been the case in recent years due the notoriety of his criticisms against the US government's handling of the Covid-19 event, but I'm still wondering what is the justification for overshadowing his decades of environmental of activism? Mr. Kennedy did not retire from his other forms of activism when he started questioning vaccine safety. The man literally spent time in jail for his efforts to end contamination and has been an eco-warrior throughout the course of his career, which started long before he became involved with the vaccine skepticism movement. There are numerous sources cited on his page to support the fact that he has had a long and storied career in this area. In addition, "Anti-vaccine activist" is a very misrepresentative and diminishing characterization used by MSM to stoke reader emotion about a highly contentious topic, while ignoring the other facets of Mr. Kennedy's health advocacy and actual beliefs about vaccine safety. Mr. Kennedy has clearly stated in a variety of interviews and publications, some of which are referenced, that he is not fighting for the elimination of all vaccines. He has made it clear time and time again that he is skeptical about the safety of certain vaccines, and lays out why he advocates for more testing, but not full elimination which negates the "ANTI" label. By using such a loaded term which doesn't reflect the reality of Mr. Kennedy's stated opinions, many portions of this article come across as an attempt to sell the same disingenuous narrative as MSM despite citing several sources that contradict this blatant mischaracterization.

E.g.

[5]https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/interview-stat-news-august-14-2017/ ksil (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine misinformation and conspiracy theories are RFK Jr.'s occupation. It is what he "does for a living." It is by far the majority of his work product for at least the last decade. Which is why reliable source ID him that way. You don't like Jr's life choices complain to him. -- M.boli (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The same applies to Naomi Wolf, again. This is different from a Andrew Wakefield, Sherri Tenpenny, or Christiane Northrup situation. KlayCax (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation? Conspiracy Theorist?

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.

---

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)

What do we do when the "reliable sources" are just repeating Democratic party talking points? RFK Junior is one of the foremost legal experts on public health. But the corporate media can't print his name without attaching the words "conspiracy theorist" to it. 2603:9000:A600:BB4:C5D7:77FD:19F:BB21 (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia still keeps being based on reliable sources, even if the reliable sources disagree with your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia in 2024 is rife with the circular reasoning of basing everything on "reliable sources," and selectively quoting from that curated list of "reliable sources." With those two tools, (curating a list of "reliable sources," and selectively drawing from them), targeted character assassination and the public ridicule of all manner of ideas, (valid or not), can be performed. It's really the propagandists' dream come true. Over time, though, citing Wikipedia will become even more of a laughing stock than it already is.

Edsanville (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Go back and read the way the article is written, and how it kicks off. There is nothing wrong with referencing quotes from someone (RFKs Anti-Vax viewpoint). However, quoting said thing and using it to oppress what everything else said Person has done is a smear campaign/biased writing.

That's the issue people are having here. The fact you can't recognize that is a shame.

Change the Wording on the article. End it the starting headline off with "He's known for his anti-vaccine stances and policies, with involvement in mis-information." Something like that. Include your a reference you keep harping about.

This is all people are asking. The introduction looks very politically influenced and not correct on the way his character is. 189.202.249.202 (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Go back and read the way the article is written, and how it kicks off. There is nothing wrong with referencing quotes from someone (RFKs Anti-Vax viewpoint). However, quoting said thing and using it to oppress what everything else said Person has done is a smear campaign/biased writing.

That's the issue people are having here. The fact you can't recognize that is a shame.

Change the Wording on the article. End it the starting headline off with "He's known for his anti-vaccine stances and policies, with involvement in mis-information." Something like that. Include your a reference you keep harping about.

This is all people are asking. The introduction looks very politically influenced and not correct on the way his character is. 189.202.249.202 (talk) 03:52, 4 April 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.[6] 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.[7] 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[8]. 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. [9]. 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)

  It violates the norms of WP: LEADSENTENCE. KlayCax (talk) 22:57, 30 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2024

The summary for RFK's Wikipedia page says that he was divorced ("div.") from Mary Richardson on 2010. That's inaccurate, as the text of the entry correctly reveals. He filed for divorce in 2010 and in 2012, before the divorce was finalized, she died by suicide. The summary should be corrected so that it does not list a 2010 divorce. Rather, I suggest, it should say: "(deceased 2012)". xtremErisa (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I made the change. This is common knowledge and noted in numerous sources on Richardson's page, including CNN obit[10]. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Changing verbatim to opening section

I don't believe that RFKs opening paragraph is fair and just. (Yes that conversation again)

wikipedia editors have been thinking very narrow minded/biased/election influenced to Republican and Democrat parties.

the saying "and activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories." Should be moved to the bottom of the intro, as the introduction paragraph is redundant on anti-vaccine policies.

I can go into the background of his success as an environmental lawyer or his neurological condition and overcoming it, but I don't think that is the conversation to have at this time.

Others and different individuals keep requesting a change for this articles talk page, but it seems the same group of editors keep preventing this change from happening. I believe a middle ground compromise needs to be made to combat this biasness. Anyone that looks into his history can see this is not fair to be opened with. 189.202.249.202 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Opinion presented as fact - Wikipedia's biggest issue

This article is a perfect example of the #1 problem that has swept Wikipedia over the past decade or so and that is presenting "mainstream" corporate media opinion as absolute fact.

It is an absolute fact that many prominent news outlets have labeled RFK Jr. a "conspiracy theorist" and that information can and should be presented. Stating he IS a conspiracy theorist is stating those outlets opinions as fact.

The terms conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorist are subjective and nebulous, who or what one is is largely a matter of opinion.

Stating someone has been labeled a conspiracy theorist is a neutral fact, stating that someone IS a conspiracy theorist is stating opinion as fact. Outlets like New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, etc. are not the arbiters of truth. Including their opinions is perfectly fine as they are prominent sources.

This article (and thousands of other "contentious" articles) all suffer from this issue and I've observed it getting worse over the years and it's made me use Wikipedia less and less. Zaqwert (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sources that are deemed reliable due to their long, verified history of fact-checking, reliability and accuracy are preferred for use in the Wikipedia. Your beef is not with the Wikipedia, but with reality. Zaathras (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem in fact is that people sometimes erroneously see facts as opinions. The Holocaust happened? OPINION; Vaccines reduce serious illness? OPINION; COVID-19 was a pendamic caused by a virus? OPINION. It's really a problem with a lack of education and rational thinking ability in the populace at large, which inevitably gets reflected in the editor corps. For perintent WP:PAGs on this matter see WP:YESPOV, with a side of WP:ASSERT. Bon courage (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

I agree it's not the only part of his notability, and I'm happy that the first sentence includes multiple notable roles. I would not say that his conspiracy theorist activities have been limited to anti-vaccine misinfo, but it's also not true that his anti-vaccine activities have been restricted to conspiracy theorizing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists, by definition, promote claims without evidence. It's inherently part of the definition.

• Naomi Wolf and other articles generally leave out their actions. (Simply describing conspiracy theorists as such. Rather than expounding upon what conspiracy theories that they promote.) WP: PRECEDENT is clear.
• MOS:FIRST is also clear that: Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Avoid cluttering the first sentence. The current phrasing is stylistically awkward and editorializing. (e.g. It comes across as "this is a very bad guy!") It's also purely reductant. There's no need to state a claim three times in the lead. It's insulting to the intelligence of readers.

The WP: IMPLICITCONSENSUS claim was based off of a misunderstanding of the 2023 RFC. (Otherwise, it's clear that a majority of editors here oppose the phrasing, per the previous reasons cited.) KlayCax (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood the 2023 RfC, and you may want to ping whoever you think has so we can correct their misunderstanding. A no consensus RfC doesn't enshrine the status quo ante forever, but it is the status quo ante, and I'm not sure why we couldn't have followed BRD with this. I don't think we've overloaded the first sentence—it's on par with multiple featured article biographies (a better comparison than the B-class Wolf article)—and even if it were, Kennedy's anti-vaccine activities would not be first on the chopping block. I'm not sure if you're serious about "conspiracy theorist" inherently including all unevidenced claims or misinformation, but I hope this was just a misstep in an otherwise reasonable position. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you that Kennedy Jr. should be mentioned as a conspiracy theorist in the leading sentence (TFD is the distinct minority here; consensus, in this case, seems clear). My position is based on the fact that articles that talk about conspiracy theorists who were once mainstream essentially never summarize their current beliefs as the summary as their life. All I believe is that the same should apply here.

Do you think the analogy to Naomi Wolf is warranted? Or no? Because Kennedy Jr.'s career path reminds me a lot of her. KlayCax (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really. Coverage of Wolf is all over the place in terms of what conspiracy theories and misinfo she's gotten into. With RFKJ, there's a clear center with some branching out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist in any capacity today is considered an INSULT. Some carry it as a badge of honor and proudly proclaim it - most of these people are not truly serious. To call someone a conspiracy theorist because they explore, question or expose information surrounding a 'known conspiracy' is irresponsible name calling and about as closed minded as one can get. This is not a moniker that should be applied to a fact based information article collective like Wiki. Caveat: If an individual is a 'self proclaimed conspiracy theorist' then put it in the bio - they said it, however to simply label someone who is causing people to question the status quo or force people, in general to question anything, is actually bias and frankly an evil tool to discourage free thinking.

Anti-vaccine misinformation 'sited from reliable sources' - First things first, the sources who labeled this 'misinformation' did so with out all of the facts and their own opinions. Just because someone doesn't trust an experimental vaccine or any vaccine for that matter doesn't warrant demonizing them. If they want to allow their own body to fight the fight or they witnessed an adverse affect of a particular vaccine or they have working knowledge of what is in a vaccine, that is their right. Sharing this information with others is how stimulating conversations are born. Telling others what they may know is not cause for attacking them. Again, calling names is not what something like Wiki should allow or promote.

In closing I want to remind everyone of your 1st thru the entire constitutions list of God given rights. To question your government is to hold them accountable for your expectations. To demonize someone for having a different opinion than you is wrong and infringes on their rights. Wikipedia was intended to be something great and forcing your opinions on others is not, laughably in my humble opinion, part of the intended greatness. Let us remember we all live on the same ball of mud in the same milky swirl in the heavens. To quote Joe Friday from Dragnet "All we want are the facts ma'am". McGreggor13 (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — McGreggor13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Fact is that RFK Jr is a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Were you not paying ANY attention to what I said? This is exactly the behavior that should not be here. If you want to blast someone go to Falsebook. Conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer are both negative connotations meant to demonize a group people who think differently than another group of people.

P.S. congratulations on your Wiki accomplishments. McGreggor13 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — McGreggor13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

They are reliably sourced descriptors, and WP:NPOV means we reflect those neutrally on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Name calling, even when referenced from a 'reliable and or reputable source' is still name calling. I explored each one. A neutral point of view marker is a copout of responsibility. I'm just disappointed that this would be something sent to print. I don't personally have any stock in RFK jr. It's about fair facts to me. So what if he is both of those things, it's rude to add a negative moniker to someone's bio who doesn't claim them as title. That's all I'm trying to say. McGreggor13 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — McGreggor13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's not "name calling". It's a moniker he has earned through his own efforts. It's completely fair. And he would deny being a "conspiracy theorist, wouldn't he? Dictators don't always claim the title of dictator, nor child predators (not saying that RFK Jr is either of those, but just that we have plenty of wiki bios on them), but that doesn't change facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Just because your opinion is that he earned it doesn't make it a matter of FACT. Look you have a wonderful blessed week. We're obviously not going to come to a consensus that opinions have no place in an "encyclopedia of facts". Good luck with the baseball stuff. McGreggor13 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — McGreggor13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

McGreggor13, you fail to understand Wikipedia. We document facts and opinions. We do not treat facts as opinions or opinions as facts. Wikipedia is uncensored, and public figures like Kennedy don't get complete protection or whitewashing, which you seem to be proposing. We simply document what RS say, and in this case it also happens to be a fact that he is a pusher of conspiracy theories and other dangerous nonsense. RS describe it that way, so we do the same. To do otherwise would be an NPOV-violating editorial interference by allowing editor's opinions to prevent documenting what RS say. See WP:YESBIAS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I totally understand now, just say Wikipedia is flaming garbage. I got you. My sincerest apologies for misunderstanding the scope and intent of Wiki. I'll take my 'exit stage right' cue stfu. Have a great day. McGreggor13 (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — McGreggor13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Anti-vaccine propaganda is, at the present time, RFK Jr's primary claim to notability. Here is a survey of main news sources from April last year, when RFK Jr. announced he will run for president. Most commonly these these reports put the anti-vax stuff in the lede sendence. The reliable sources were pretty consistent with ID-ing him as an anti-vaxer.

• AP wire service: Anti-vaccine activist RFK Jr. launches presidential campaign April 19.

Anti-vaccine activist RFK Jr. challenging Biden in 2024 April 5.

• CNN: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the anti-vaccine activist and environmental lawyer, described himself as a truth-teller who will “end the division” as he launched ... April 19.
• NYT: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Soon to Announce White House Run, Sows Doubts About Vaccines April 17.

Robert Kennedy Jr., a Noted Vaccine Skeptic, Files to Run for President April 5.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Makes His White House Run Official. Announcing his long-shot bid to challenge President Biden, he spoke to a crowd of people who voiced their shared skepticism about vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry. April 19.

• The Hill weighs in on an interview with the new candidate: ABC News edits RFK Jr. interview to exclude 'false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines' April 28

In addition to the reliable sources, the sheer weight of RFK Jr.s work product is hard to ignore. The past five books. Movies. Law suits. The guy is a veritable gusher of anti-vax and conspiracy theory bushwa. And not surprisingly this is what the reliable sources tell us. -- M.boli (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

They write the same about Naomi Wolf now as well. Again, news articles have a natural bias towards WP: presentism. A Wikipedia article is supposed to be comprehensive.

No one's denying he's spread misinformation. Many just think that the total aggregate summary of his life can't be distilled into that. KlayCax (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for Abortion section

Hello, the "Abortion" section under the "Political Views" tab could be updated to better reflect the latest information.

Current: In 2023, Kennedy said on camera to NBC reporter Ali Vitali that, if elected, he would sign a federal ban on abortions performed after 15 weeks or 21 weeks of pregnancy. He went on to say, "I think the states have a right to protect a child once the child becomes viable, and that right, it increases." His campaign quickly released a statement saying, "Today, Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question posed to him by a NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair....Mr. Kennedy's position on abortion is that it is always the woman's right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion."[188]

Updated: As a candidate for 2024 U.S. President, Kennedy has shared his firm support for bodily autonomy and the judicial principles established in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, arguing abortion should be a legal option for women to best determine for themselves on an individual basis as opposed to government regulation. He has stated a key part of his position is his view that abortion cannot be considered in isolation from support for mothers and families, citing universal free childcare and other economic relief policies as ways to create more hospitable conditions for young families and to reduce the rate of individual abortions.

In 2023, Kennedy said on camera to NBC reporter Ali Vitali that, if elected, he would sign a federal ban on abortions performed after 21 weeks of pregnancy. He added, "I think the states have a right to protect a child once the child becomes viable, and that right, it increases." His campaign quickly released a statement saying, "Today, Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question posed to him by an NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair ... Mr. Kennedy's position on abortion is that it is always the woman's right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion."[188] JLuzPaz (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, could you kindly let me know the process for establishing a consensus on this edit request?

As I understood it, this page currently has restrictions and so edits are supposed to be offered up here on the Talk page and then editors can implement them from there, yes? Please let me know if I am missing something. I'm happy to help. JLuzPaz (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit requests#Planning a request --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Right, ask for consensus before using the template. In this case, I oppose your proposed addition. I was going to say wording like firm support for bodily autonomy sounds like it could have come from his campaign page, and it seems that yes you are citing his campaign website for the change. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate you clarifying the process and I'll post here without going through the template function. Yes, I cited the candidate's views on this topic as publicly stated on their official campaign website, as well as the Washington Post's overview of 2024 candidate positions. The Washington Post cites the official campaign website as well. You oppose? JLuzPaz (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Muboshgu -- hey there, just wanted to check back on my last comment about a proposed update to this section. Thanks! JLuzPaz (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

WaPo is fine as a source. His campaign page is not. I haven't looked at what WaPo says as its behind a paywall and I'm not a subscriber. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Muboshgu -- there's no subscription required for Washington Post's overview of each candidate's positions on various topics: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2023/presidential-candidates-2024-policies-issues/robert-kennedy-jr-abortion/

As for the campaign website, would that not be a relevant / primary source for citing any candidate's stated "Political Views," given that is where all candidates specifically go to describe their views to the public? From my perspective, it would seem rather impractical NOT to cite a candidate's own views as directly stated on their official website for a campaign, and only cite third-party descriptions ABOUT those views…(aside from Washington Post citing the same website in this instance). Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! JLuzPaz (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Muboshgu -- I just wanted to check on my last comment. JLuzPaz (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason to change anything, and that no other editor on this page has jumped in suggests to me that they don't see a need to change anything either. It's better to use secondary sources than primary. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the proposed updates to RFK Jr.'s abortion positions belong in the Abortion and fertility medicine section of the campaign article. Which is way out of date.

The Political views section in this article has too much cruft.

• Some parts of this article's political views section are related to Kennedy's work, e.g. his conspiracy theories, his environmental advocacy, etc.
• Other views are related to topics he has long spoken out on, so he might be known as a prominent voice advocating those positions. The section "additional statements on foreign affairs" would be in that category, he is sort of a hero in anti-war movement circles.
• However the gun control section was added last summer, abortion was added last fall. It seems his views on neither were considered notable aspects of RFK Jr's biography until he ran for president.

My thought is political views which become notable only in the context of his political campaign belong in the campaign article. Where, of course, they should be well-documented. And that article is sorely in need of your update.

And they should be deleted from here.

I'll put a {{main}} pointer in this article, referring over to the campaign article where his views on these topics are elaborated in more depth. -- M.boli (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

This statement: "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist. " states two opinions, that cannot be corroborated (because they are opinions): 1) anti-vaccine activist is erroneous, and ill-formed: RFK is not, nor has he ever been, against vaccines, per se. He is for vaccine transparency. That is all. Please provide citation that states RFK is against vaccines. Should be changed to "advocate for vaccine transparency" 2) conspiracy theorist - unproveable, hence erroneous. You provide "citations" from two works, that in themselves are opinions. In order to claim that someone is an conspiracy theorist, you must first delineate something as a theory - in fact, Kennedy has always cited medial references, amply, in his books and discussions, that point to verifiable evidence for his claims. There is no "theory", only evidence.

In general, the use of such social buzzwords - used to label people for political purposes, rather than for the education of people, should be discouraged, or banned, from Wikipedia.

The fact that this article is uneditable is also suspect, in a Presidential campaign cycle. 204.144.213.38 (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the talk page history. We have had this discussion an infinite amount, and it is the common consensus that RFK is an anti-vaccine activist who promotes conspiracy theories. If you want to try make the case that someone who said Bill Gates would cut off people's access to money for not getting vaccinated and thinks COVID is ethnically targeted, you are wasting your time and will get nothing achieved here. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Party affiliation

Hello, I believe in the other party section of the infobox We the People Party should be added and it would redirect to his campaign page. This is because he has founded this party for ballot access in many states, perhaps something to that tune can be added as a footnote to it. There is a campaign video he posted titled "I‘m creating a new political party" that explains this Colin.1678 (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that this party actually exists, apart from a few "he says he's gonna create it" articles from the beginni9ng of the year. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The party exists. Unquestionably 2601:244:4582:E560:8962:DC1D:2563:6609 (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Prove it. Zaathras (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hawaii is the only state that has certified the party. TFD (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2024

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.

---

Change anti vaxx to "anti FORCED vaccinations without proof of benefit or effectiveness"

Remove conspiracy theorist because his ideas are being proven in court. 2603:8001:8600:7732:9830:FF88:ABB1:2AF1 (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@IP and BigMouthCommie: Read the sources cited in the article. If you have reliable sources that contradict them, bring them. If you don't have any, this section is for the birds. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling I don't have any knowledge about the specifics the other user raised, but I do have a bit of a bias about charged language being adopted int articles, regardless of the verifiability. that is to say, even if an otherwise reliable source has characterized a person, group, or event in one way or another, we should strive to present a neutral point of view. conspiracy theorist is pretty obviously a dysphemism, so I'm sure we could find a more neutral term. as for antivax, as I said, I don't know if that's actually his position, but we should try to honestly communicate his position if we are going to discuss it. commie (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The terms are sourced and accurate. They will not be changing. Zaathras (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras One of the sources is an editorial in vanity Fair. that cannot be considered a reliable source even if vanity Fair in some other context might be. The other source from the ap supports the claim that he's anti-vax very well. The characterization of him as a conspiracy theorist cannot be well sourced: it's a characterization not a fact. regardless of how reliable the source might otherwise be, the label is charged. given the guidance in the biography of living persons policy, it must be removed immediately. commie (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope, per Wikipedia:VANITYFAIR. It has been deemed a reliable source for use in the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

regardless of whether any source has been deemed a reliable source, editorials must be regarded with scrutiny. commie (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

None of the Vanity Fair sources are editorials as far as I can tell EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

it's literally written by the editor commie (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

it is regarded to be a reliable source about popular culture topics. i don't believe it's authoritative about either politics or medical information. commie (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a good thing we are guided by project policy & consensus, and not your personal feelings. Zaathras (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

your tone borders on incivility. the issue is that there is not consensus, and we are reading the same policies. commie (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There has been consensus for the current version for quite awhile. Your new and contrarian voice does not gainsay that. Good luck in your endeavors. Zaathras (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

consensus does not supersede NPOV. commie (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

>Your new and contrarian voice

please keep this about the subject. it is not a personal disagreement but a disagreement about whether this article complies with the policy commie (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding of policy is the subject at hands, sadly. Zaathras (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I have a watchlist, I do not need pings. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

i think my client filled that in. i'll be sure to look for it in the future. commie (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

verifiability has no bearing on NPOV. "conspiracy theorist" is not an objective fact. it's a characterization. i believe it should be removed entirely, but if it will not be (per the somewhat recent npov noticeboard discussion), then it should be couched, attributed, and taken out of wikivoice. commie (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This has already been explained at length to other newbies. Please consult Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./FAQ as well as the archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Next time, consult the FAQ and the archives before repeating the same old refuted claims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

yes. i read the most recent NPOV noticeboard discussion as well. The issue is that name-calling in wikivoice is not neutral, and doing so hurts the credibility of the endeavor. and no amount of consensus can compromise npov. commie (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. If someone is widely reported as a conspiracy theorist and there is similar reporting in reliable sources of them actually creating, repeating or pushing those theories, then there is no problem with Wikipedia using "conspiracy theorist" in Wikivoice. RFKJr is by no means the only person with a WP:BLP that we refer to in those terms. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

i disagree. no matter who characterizes his claims this way, to do so is not neutral. in fact, by focusing again on reliable sources, a subset of policy positions that help establish verifiability, you are creating a red herring. it's not an issue of verifiability, it's an issue of neutrality. commie (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

commie, you fail to understand NPOV. At Wikipedia, "neutral" has a special meaning, not the typical meaning. It does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases.

"Neutral" in NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the common sense of the word. It does not mean without bias from sources, only without bias from editors. NPOV does not require that sources or content be without bias or be neutral.

Editors should remain neutral by not removing the bias found in RS. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so, and that is a very proper bias. Anything else would be dishonest. Wikipedia does not support dishonesty or whitewash it.

Editors are "neutral" when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not "move" or "balance" content to the center to keep an article "neutral". That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content.

I suggest you also read WP:Dead horse, WP:IDHT, and WP:Disruptive. Yes, your continued insistance, in the face of massive opposition from many very experienced editors, is disruptive and not helpful. It's time to back away. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

the essay you linked flies in the face of the policy as written. commie (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it flies in the face of your misunderstood interpretation, and your interpretation flies in the face of how experienced editors understand it. I have been here since 2003 and helped write that policy. Many other editors here have been here a long time. You're kicking a dead horse. It's time to back away or risk getting blocked for disruption. You're wasting our time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

i'll be taking this higher. commie (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

LMAO! Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That is one of my favorite songs. Zaathras (talk) 20:55, 22 April 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.