Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Sentence is biased

I also suggest that the sentence in the first paragraph which contains subjective opinion and not fact -- by use of the words "propaganda" and 'conspiracy theories" -- is not in line with the policies set forth by Wikipedia. Please reconsider this edit.

From Wikipedia Neutral Point of View page:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view 2806:290:C800:4F87:6916:25AB:EB12:A0A5 (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. It is not an opinion but a fact that most of what Kennedy says about vaccines is false. He supports the fraudulent ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield's long-refuted claim that vaccines cause autism, for example. Children die of preventable diseases because Kennedy misled their parents and the parents of children in their vicinity into not protecting them.

No, we will not pretend that facts are opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The intensity of your emotions and the loudness of your gavel as you pound it has no power to mske your opinions “fact”.

Others have a right to their opinion no less than yours. And while something may be proven as fact to your satisfaction, the contrary may be proven as “fact” to their satisfaction, and you will need to learn to cope with that, or not, as you wish.

But even if you, social media, mainstream media, schools, business, and government align to silence all opposing opinions with the weapons of Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler combined, many of us will still continue to assert our right to disagree with you.

Someone has politely requested that this posting be more honestly unbiased. Urbie56 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence is extremely biased and should be considerably added to. No reason to put Wikipedia's thumb on the scale in a national election by discrediting one of the candidates with a totally negative first sentence. At a minimum a few words should be added to balance what is now Wikipedia reputation bias. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:YWAB. You need to give an actual source-based reason. Just crying bias is not enough. Do you want us to sweep facts under the rug just because this guy wants to be president? What sort of reason is that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggested nothing of the sort, just that wording could be added to the "...best known for" list. He's known for his environmentalism too, and that could be added to the two negative connotations, and also best known as the son of RFK. Since they are used in the lead sentence, the words "best known for" are what should be balanced a bit. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggested nothing of the sort, just that wording could be added to the "...best known for" list. You suggested that where? I cannot find the words "best known for" on this Talk page before this. Also, Do you want us to is a question, since you did not say what you want.

No matter. The article does not say "best known for" either. It says "known for". So what are you suggesting? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

How about filling out the sentence to balance it: "...known for his work on environmental issues, promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories, and being the son of U.S. senator Robert F. Kennedy and a nephew of President John F. Kennedy." This would be accurate while at the same time not purposely filling in the blanks with only negativity. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Most of the references regarding Kennedy Jr's supposed anti vaccine propaganda have come from mainstream news articles which are inherently bias. Wikepedia articles should reference peer reviewed literature. This is especially important when stating as fact that vaccines do not cause autism or that they are completely safe. Robert Kennedy's book 'The Real Anthony Fauci' cites hundreds of peer reviewed articles which carry far more weight than news articles. T456GJKN (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on mainstream articles because they are known to be more reliable than wackadoodle conspiracist anti-science sources you seem to prefer. You will not change that.

Citing "peer reviewed articles" and quoting them out of context is a common stunt by pseudoscience proponents. They actually do not understand those articles, and you probably don't either. Instead of lawyers like Kennedy, Wikipedia prefers sources by scientists who quote peer reviewed articles, since they do understand them. See WP:SECONDARY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Never underestimate the intolerance of the Orwellian left for anything it can't deal with, its use of linguistic subterfuge to disguise that intolerance (as if consensus has or ever had anything to do with truth), its ad hominem jeers at those who don't tow the line, and its patent disrespect for the intelligence of ordinary people who can't, apparently, be trusted or allowed to make up their own minds about something controversial without having it thrust down their throats by these arrogant self-appointed arbiters of truth. And Wikipedia continues to allow these perverted attacks in what purports to be an encyclopedia, yet still expects me to give them an annual donation (as I was stupid enough to do in years past). 2001:8003:1C26:DC01:5484:4453:BC9A:A59C (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You have a right to your opinion, but not a right to your own facts. And you do not have the right to make all Wikipedia articles agree with you.

This is not about what I say, it is what about reliable sources say. As always. Read them. Invoking Stalin and other uninvolved people is just a red herring. Mindlessly associating positive words like "honest" and "polite" with your own position are pretty transparent shenanigans and far from honest. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

My concerns are not with Mr. Kennedy's campaign nor with vaccines in general. As a person who was harmed by the medical establishment myself, and after more than a decade of reading original independent research I have come to the conclusion that mainstream medicine can and does harm people, and that the information is often already known or available which could prevent the harm.

Regarding vaccines, if it turns out that there is no causal link between childhood vaccines and autism (I don't think that the science is settled yet) [1]https://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/health/irpt-cdc-autism-vaccine-study/index.html) the seed and interest is still there to analyze all of the other conditions linked to vaccines, what's in them, and/or how they are administered. [2]https://www.rescuepost.com/files/age-of-autism-vaccination-outcomes-anthony-r.-mawson-brian-d.-ray-azad-r.-bhuiyan-binu-jacob.pdf If certain kinds of research efforts are continually dismissed as propaganda or conspiracy theories then the net effect is censorship of independent, unbiased research. I believe there's a cause for concern about what information we are given in an authoritarian manner, where differing scientific opinions are labeled as minsinformation or simply ignored.

I still stand by my inital point that the tone of the introductory sentence is not in line with Wiki standards of a neutral point of view. It's placement, for one, colors everything that follows. The terms "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories" are loaded with negative connotations. What source called Kennedy a conspiracy theorist? Who said that what Kennedy presents is propaganda? A writer from The Hill? Are they qualified to make that assessment? Is this a consensus of journalists that we are talking about? Please provide a qualified source where we have the benefit of coming for the orignal statement or we are back to The Sun calling Johnny Depp a wife-beater and then other journalists parroting and on and on, with no actual basis in fact.

Finally, please provide a neutral discussion of the relevant points. Perhaps you could use words like "controversial" and "advocates" which will allow you to at least summarize his points so that we aren't left with the impression that (as others have mentioned) that Kennedy believes that Paul McCartney was killed walking across Abbey Road.

Thank you for your consideration. 2806:290:C800:3542:85D5:114E:6DFD:97B1 (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)#

My concerns are not with Mr. Kennedy's campaign nor with vaccines in general. Then you are in the wrong place. This page is for improving the article on Kennedy.

I have come to the conclusion that mainstream medicine can and does harm people The content of the article should not depend on your personal adventures and conclusions but on reliable sources.

I don't think that the science is settled yet You are wrong. The evidence is very, very clear, and the only people who say otherwise are scientific ignoramuses like Kennedy and frauds like Wakefield.

• The evidence for such a connection consists of one single study, meanwhile retracted because it was faked, with 12 patients handpicked by the faker, written and faked by someone who had a patent for a competetitor vaccine at the time, who was paid by an attorney who represented parents suing vaccine companies, and who failed to declare any conflict of interest.
• The evidence against it is several large studies with thousands of patients, with no known problems.

What source called Kennedy a conspiracy theorist? Finally, a relevant question. The answer is that the lead summarizes the body of the article, and the sources are given in the body. Search for "conspiracy" and you will find the sources in the section "Autism and vaccines".

No, we will not handle a clearly false position as if it were still unclear. See WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact is, some people call him a conspiracy theorist. Just blanketly labeling him a conspiracy theorist is an opinion. If the article said "known for environmental activism, what many consider promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories" then it would be a fact. Just saying it's propaganda and conspiracy theories is an opinion. The very use of those two terms is an opinion from one side or the other. What if another article said "promoting pro-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories"? You would certainly consider that an opinion. By the way, I'm not anti-vax, and would consider myself 100% pro-vax, so I'm coming from a unbiased viewpoint on this subject (in my opinion of course.) Jimithing1980 (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You either did not read WP:FALSEBALANCE, or did not understand it. "Many consider" is also WP:WEASEL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, read the science on Children's Health Defense. There is a substantial body of evidence to support his claims, published in scientific journals, that you cannot just dismiss as 'opinion'. 2001:8003:ED39:AB01:5D2D:5B4B:E1EC:865 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

What is "the science on Children's Health Defense" supposed to be? Do you mean the long-refuted nonsense they spout on their website? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure the best place to jump into this discussion, but I first off apologize for jumping in to edit the page without first checking here. I agree that the language, as I found it, was biased. For my part, I don't object to using "conspiracy theories", I just object to "propaganda". That is purely a subjective, pejorative term. We could just as easily say that he engages in environmental propaganda, but that would also make a deliberately negative connotation to it.

As per the discussion started by @Marcywinograd below, I support revising the lead to read:

"...is an American environmental lawyer known for waterway protection, opposition to vaccines and COVID lockdowns, and conspiracy theories involving corporate profiteering during the COVID-19 pandemic and false/disputed/fringe claims that vaccines cause autism..[2][3][4]. Kennedy Jr. is the son of U.S. senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy, both of whom were assassinated during Robert F. Kennedy's youth." ~~ KPalicz (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I reinstated the last instance of "propaganda" you deleted because the word is explicitly in the source. You are whitewashing the article because of WP:IDLI. Stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Fully support your suggestion for removal 66.198.209.98 (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

To Wikipedia’s Response:

In the rules and regulations, Wikipedia states that they require that sources are reliable and cited correctly. This page has 300 references, all of which are media outlets, news, magazines and newspapers. There are statements that were allowed to be on this page that are subjective and biased, not factual. Your response makes no sense. Personal remarks made by a person in the media, does not qualify as “reliable” or as a “source.” Wikipedia promotes propaganda. 2601:645:902:5D40:4150:E728:BEE7:C74C (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Wikipedia’s Response", your opinion on whether something is factual does not matter, and if you have better sources, bring them. That is what this page is for. Not for vague complaints. See WP:FORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, using the word “propaganda” is suggestive, not objective and within itself propagandistic. Especially when there’s a whole lot of people who wouldn’t consider his statements incorrect. Eliyahfeld (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree the statements are biased and should be changed or removed. Propaganda and conspiracy are words used to discredit individuals and need to be supported/cited by undeniable facts. The world was once believed to be flat, (some still think it is), smoking was healthy and this is no different. He could be right, he could be wrong and the only fact is nonody really knows for sure yet... words like challenges, disagrees or opposes traditional norms are more appropriate. 99.253.224.3 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There's four sources for the claims he pushes anti-vaccine propaganda and another four for other health-related conspiracy theories. The wording is fine. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Edited to add: Also see Dr. Janet Kern, PhD on the relationship between thimerosal (which I think Kennedy has talked about) and autism https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/12/24/dr-janet-kern-on-the-dangers-of-thimerosal/. She studies autism and her bio can be found here:https://mercuryfreebaby.org/janet-kern/ and here:https://www.conem.org/people/kernbio/. She co-authored a paper concerned with the relationship of mercury (found in vaccines) and autism https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27473827/. There's actually quite an exhaustive list of PubMws papers that she has co-authored regarding the relationship of vaccine ingredients, such as thimerosal, and autism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:290:C800:3542:85D5:114E:6DFD:97B1 (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Thimerosal in vaccines is also linked to other adverse outcomes, for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961900/. And here's a PubMed article that is critical of the CDC's methodology concluding "As seen in this review, the studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism. These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4065774/. Another more recent review found that aluminum adjuvants found in vaccines suggest a correlation with autism: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0946672X21000547. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, only provided to demonstrate that scientists disagree.

Those are not reliable sources. They are just a selection of random websites that agree with you. The only peer-review papers in the bunch are in rather obscure journals, three of them have the well-known doctor impersonators Mark R. Geier and David A. Geier as coauthors, and there are WP:PRIMARY issues. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

And yet, the article provides a Craig Foster, a psychology professor who studies pseudoscience, as an expert in what is and is not science. I see clear bias in the rest of the article under the Autism and vaccines heading, which reads like a hit-piece sourced with some dubious sources catering to a certain point of view. 2806:290:C800:41CC:A539:F61D:6FE8:B839 (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel like citing someone who has had their medical licence revoked for malpractice and falsehood would be a more major issue than the sources we use now. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

And does that invalidate the research and opinions of the co-authors? Malpractice applies to a medical practice, not to research.

I know I'm wasting my breath here, but before I leave just a parting observation if I may.

I find it interesting that just about every research scientist or physician that has spoken critically about vaccines already has a Wiki page where you have labeled them as perpetrators of either fraud or minsinformation, so no one can cite anyone because you have already discredited them to your own satisfaction.

Brian Hooker who reanalyzed CDC data

Andrew Wakefield

William Thompson CDC whistleblower

Dr. Robert Malone

Dr. Peter McCullough

The International Medical Council on Vaccination

And looking at the talk pages of the individuals it seems you have encountered these issues again and again for neutrality to avail. Very eye opening indeed. 2806:290:C800:71E7:EDD4:6D72:154:24F5 (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not our fault that only frauds, ideologues, and ignorant laypeople make those claims.

If you disagree with the reliable sources we quote, go write publish reliable publications of your own, then we can quote those. Of course, the problem with this is that the publishers will check if what you write is actually true.

I know this is probably a novel thought for you, but you should start considering the possibility that you are on the wrong side here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The only "side" I was taking here was the against the willful suppression of dissenting viewpoints in health-related science, but when I tried to explain that, you told me I had no business being here. Do you actually expect me to believe that all of these people got together to perpetrate a scientific fraud? How very conspiratorial. You have deemed every scientist and physician critical of vaccines as "unreliable." Your bias is obvious and disconcerting. Wikipedia touts itself as being an authentic Encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. Perhaps the next time you talk about propaganda and conspiracy theories you might look inward.

Since you've gotten me more interested in this, I've done a little more searching around. It seems that I'm not the first to come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is a fraud. But once again, you are way ahead of me and have also described anything critical of Wikipedia as fraudulent and as promoting conspiracy theories. I'll leave the following quote from The Global Research Centre and link anyway, so others can judge the information for themselves:

Edit to add: Wikipedia will not let me include the link as this content/author/website has been blacklisted. This just keeps getting better and better...

"Despite Wikipedia’s failure to be accurate and neutral about subjects that have an immediate impact on the lives and well being of its users, it has been a successful tool for the deep state and special corporate interests. In similar ways it serves as a public relations operation for the drug industry just as the Hill and Knowlton PR firm did for the tobacco industry in the 1950s, except under the cloak of being an authentic encyclopedia. The Foundation has condoned it being used as a weapon to silence and lessen the impact of people such as Robert Kennedy Jr, Deepak Chopra, Craig Murray, John Pilger, Rupert Sheldrake and Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier by characterizing them in derogatory language."" 2806:290:C800:6BB9:D863:2F90:2E86:7846 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, just maybe, it's been blacklisted because it's a bunch of conspiracy theories??? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 14:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

willful suppression of dissenting viewpoints It's not that. It is called quality control: including what the community of experts says, excluding what your crazy uncle says. You are on the side of those who want to include the crazy uncles, and your opponents are on the side of quality control. And that pro-crazy-uncle side is the side you should consider the possibility of being wrong.

Do you actually expect me to believe that all of these people got together to perpetrate a scientific fraud? Depending on who you mean by "all these people", probably no. William Thompson, for example, has been misinterpreted. Hooker is not competent for medicine, Wakefield is a fraud, Malone overemphasizes his own contributions, and so on. But all this is beside the point. Wikipedia articles are not based on the free-flowing opinions of people with random credentials but on sources which are reliable for the specific subject. On the subject of a vaccines-autism connection, those sources are peer-reviewed systematic reviews in top journals, summarizing high-quality peer-reviewed studies, and they are unanimous.

You have deemed every scientist and physician critical of vaccines as "unreliable." It is not my fault that all the competent ones agree on certain questions and that only incompetent ones make enough rookie mistakes to end up with the false conclusion.

Wikipedia will not let me include the link as this content/author/website has been blacklisted. Again, please consider the possibility that there is a good reason for taking this measure. You can even check what was the reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"Global Research" is the site run by Michel Chossudovsky, a 9/11 conspiracist and Kremlin asset [3]. That particular complaint was coauthored by Gary Null, an HIV/AIDS denialist who has been advocating fake medicine since the heyday of laetrile. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes. Wikipedia, the famously user controlled website, is a tool for the deep state. I think I can tell why that site was blacklisted. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

These references are peer reviewed by professionals in this field. They are researchers and have PHDs and Doctorates. The references on this Wikipedia page are only from Fox News, The Hill and other news outlets. They are not facts. 2601:645:902:5D40:4150:E728:BEE7:C74C (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It does not matter which papers the people who wrote something have hanging at their walls. It matters how well the outlets that publish it check whether the writers just in down unfounded opinions or actual science. Laypeople often mistakenly think that it is credentials that make something credible. That is naive. Read WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to push a "vaccines cause autism" viewpoint? As an autistic woman, I'm thoroughly disappointed and insulted, IP. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 14:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to stop discussing with people using utterly BS sources and fraudulent claims as shown above.

It is a prime example of pigeon chess. --Julius Senegal (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Julius Senegal. I hadn't seen any of these discussions. I thought the term "propaganda" sounded unencyclopaedic, and saw that it was only supported by one citation out of three (The Guardian), so I changed it to "beliefs". I'm fine with the revert, given the calibre and clear agenda of some of the others who wanted that term changed.

But please stick to WP:AGF, yeah? Practically half of my extended family are doctors, so it feels especially insulting for a total stranger to accuse me of being anti-vaccine. If I was, I'd have been whopped hard enough that I doubt I'd ever be able to use a computer again, or do much else. Fuckin hell. BRB, off to do some breathing exercises. Nothing personal. And thanks for pushing back on the people who really are trying to WP:CPOV. DFlhb (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

No hard feelings. We have mentioned it even in the "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" way above the discussion page (incl. the discussion link), as this is subject for many "questions" trying to avoid negative aspects of RFK Jr. Never wanted to insult u. --Julius Senegal (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It's already forgotten; cheers mate. And sorry, I should have probably typed it and then deleted it without posting. Hadn't seen the FAQ either (big oops on my part). DFlhb (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is not in line with policies. If in a later paragraph one wants to cite various sources labeling his writings "propaganda" that is different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OriMTL (talk • contribs) 03:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope. If RS say it, we say it. Andre🚐 04:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions for revising the lead

The lead has been improved and is a little more balanced, but I still think it sounds like a hit piece:

Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer and author known for environmental activism, promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories,[2][3][4] and for being the son of U.S. senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy. The lead paragraph has been updated to include that Kennedy is running for President in the Democratic primary. I still think, however, that it's inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to include a lead that describes Kennedy as "promoting anti-vaccine propaganda." The problem is the word "propaganda" because it's such a non-specific loaded term. How about revising the lead for specificity:

"... is an American environmental lawyer known for waterway protection, opposition to vaccine mandates and COVID lockdowns, and conspiracy theories involving corporate profiteering during the COVID-19 pandemic.[2][3][4]. Kennedy Jr. is the son of U.S. senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy, both of whom were assassinated during Robert F. Kennedy's youth."

The word "propaganda" is one that could be used when someone else who is quoted describes Kennedy, but I don't think Wikipedia should lead off with that non-neutral word. Marcywinograd (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Your wording is a bit too much on the opposite side of the non-neutral spectrum. "Opposition to vaccine mandates" isn't what he is doing, he's opposing vaccines entirely and is pushing false information such as the false claim that vaccines cause autism... which is propaganda. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely with @LilianaUwU. Although I guess "misinformation" would work, too. BTW, is he really known for environmental activism? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks back in 2008, he was mostly known for extreme beliefs, like, uh, believing in climate change. "Well-respected" though! But nowadays, it's definitely the vaccine stuff first and foremost. DFlhb (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I really like @Marcywinograd's rewrite. But you are right, he isn't just opposed to vaccine mandates, but vaccines themselves. I support using Marcy's language but support changing "opposition to vaccine mandates and COVID lockdowns, and conspiracy theories involving corporate profiteering during the COVID-19 pandemic." to "opposition to vaccines and COVID lockdowns, and conspiracy theories involving corporate profiteering during the COVID-19 pandemic and false/disputed/fringe claims that vaccines cause autism." KPalicz (talk) KPalicz (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Marcywinograd's attempt for whitewashing RFK jr.

With his organization (Children's Health Defense) he is not just "against" vaccine mandates, he places lies and misinformation about vaccines at all. I am sorry to say but what RFK Jr. is doing is far beyond rational arguments. --Julius Senegal (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

he's repeatedly said that he is NOT anti-vaxx, only pro vaccine safety and against mandates. you can't say he's just an anti-vaxxer because he's not. 2001:8003:ED39:AB01:5D2D:5B4B:E1EC:865 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

All anti-vaxxers say that. He spreads untruths about vaccination that turns people away from it, making him an anti-vaxxer. That is what reliable sources say. Of course, he does not know (or does not admit) that his ignorant claims are false, that is why he does not know he is an anti-vaxxer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Applied to individuals, the word is only ever used as a smear. - Tzaquiel (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If that is the case, you should go and convince the reliable sources the article is based on not to use the word. Come back when you have succeeded. See WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I also have some issues with the lead as written.

I agree the word "propaganda" has some negative connotations, although it is still an accurate description. For example, we could call the push for people to get vaccinated pro-vaccine propaganda and it would be accurate. Propaganda is aimed at advancing a particular idea, regardless of if the underlying idea is or is not true.

I agree with others that using the word "misinformation" would be a better reflection of the consensus opinion.

I also take some issue with the narrowness of the lead, which does not reflect the content of the rest of the article, which includes major sections about Kennedy's other activist efforts. My understanding is that wikipedia tries to avoid the recency fallacy?

I took a crack at rewriting it:

"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, activist, author, member of the Kennedy political family, and a 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Kennedy has advocated for environmentalism, renewable energy, human rights, peace and free speech. He is well-known as an anti-vaccine activist, and has been criticized for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories."

I think using the language "has been criticized for..." maintains a more neutral voice while still pointing out the issues surrounding his involvement in the anti-vaccine movement. 71.236.144.204 (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with this statement. Is Wikipedia taking political sides now in saying that RFKJr spread PROPAGANDA about vaccines? This is a terrible way to describe his views and is very misleading and one sided. I expect more from Wikipedia than this, and would hold you to a higher standard of truth. 2603:8000:9001:41C2:F977:406F:E1F5:13E6 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing political about RFKJ spreading propaganda. It's simply pseudoscience. Wikipedia is supposed to be one-sided when it comes to science vs. pseudoscience. Read WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. That is exactly the higher standard of truth that is needed. Your philosophy of "some say this, some say that" is appropriate only when there is actual uncertainty on the subject among experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, activist, author, member of the Kennedy political family, and a 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Kennedy has advocated for environmentalism, renewable energy, human rights, peace and free speech. He is well-known as an anti-vaccine activist, and has been criticized for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories."

This is a perfectly worded intro for this page. I'm not sure why certain individuals are fighting it so hard. I've been informed by the government that the pandemic is over anyways. Rod Bearing (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rod Bearing Agreed. Your proposed revision is a well-organized, concise biographical lead, unbiased, and written in the proper voice for an encyclopedic entry. It gives due weight to the entirety of the subject. Kalem014 (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That severly downplays Kennedy's main claim to notability. Kennedy took a small narrowly-focused anti-vax organization, grew it tremendously, and branched out into a world of conspiracy theories, AIDS denial, 5G cell phone and smart meter opposition, and so forth. It has been his occupation for a quite a long time now. Just 2 months ago Kennedy sued Joe Biden alleging (among other things) government censorship of Hunter Biden news. He blurbed the AIDS denial book published this spring which is being marketed as a follow-on to his "The Real Anthony Fauci" conspiracy/misinformation screed from two years ago. Spreading male cow manure is what RFK Jr. does for a living. -- M.boli (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, activist, author, member of the Kennedy political family, and a 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Kennedy has advocated for environmentalism, renewable energy, human rights, peace and free speech. He is well-known as an anti-vaccine activist, and has been criticized for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories."

The last sentence of @Rod Bearing's proposed lead (above) gives a more than adequate representative intro to this aspect of RKFJ's bio; if anything it is emphasized. Moreover, it is not forgotten in fact, that RFKJ has been a well-known public figure since he was a child for all of the highly noteworthy reasons mentioned.

We are discussing the lead for an encyclopedic entry for the biography of a living person. So, "editors must take particular care" to ensure that such entries are NPOV and "dispassionate in tone". WP:BLP Kalem014 (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually the one who wrote that lead, although I'm glad to have @Rod Bearing's endorsement, as well as your own.

I got agreement from @Hob Gadling to add something about RFKs environmentalism in the "Lead" section below:

There is no need for a more "neutral voice". See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Feel free to add more environmental stuff to the lede, below the anti-vax stuff. But we will not whitewash it.

If he wants support from Wikipedia for merging the Democrats into the Republican anti-science platform to bridge the divide between left and right, he can forget that.

Although I have edited Wikipedia previously I never got around to making a user name, much less one that has enough edits to make changes to a protected page. Another user (@Marcywinograd iirc) added something about a specific environmental campaign to the lead, but it was removed because the sourcing was deemed inadequate.

If you are able to edit the lead, it seems we have at least partial agreement about my proposed changes (which I believe are throughly sourced in the article in the summarized form I suggested) 71.236.144.204 (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. Was able to reuse the existing citations re: "anti-vaccine" and "conspiracy theories". Other aspects of the lead should be less controversial, but let me know if further citations are necessary. Thank you! -- Kalem014 (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• This section is being used to justify edit warring changes to the long-term lead. I am not seeing consensus for such changes in the above discussion. As we see an increase in coverage of Kennedy, his promotion of anti-vaccine views is commonly the primary descriptor used. See for example: "Robert Kennedy Jr., With Musk, Pushes Right-Wing Ideas and Misinformation" in The New York Times oder "Robert F Kennedy Jr says he has 'conversations with dead people'" in The Guardian. It is not sensible for such a primary contributor to his notability to be moved out of the lead sentence. The wiki-voice statement on propaganda and conspiracy theories has been discussed enough that there is an FAQ above, and there's even more sourcing out there now to support it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, the supposed "consensus" being cited here is based on the opinions of IP users and SPAs/ infrequently active editors, which I suspect would not stand up to wider scrutiny of this article was brought to NPOVN or similar. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  There is no edit-warring from me as I engaged in talk prior to making the edit, which was reverted twice without a valid explanation. His advocacy is mentioned in the first sentence, and more specifically with regard to anti-vaccine advocacy, etc. is still given heavy emphasis in the first paragraph, second sentence. Your statement that this his "anti-vaxx and health misinformation is by far the most notable thing about him" is simply not true from a objective historical perspective and reflects a clear POV. Kalem014 (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  You're wrong about edit warring, and I'll link some info on your page. You're wrong about Hemi, who gave you sufficient reasons for reverting every time. And, you're wrong about me, as I didn't say the thing you quoted me saying. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Let's keep it civil please, the "you're wrong" x 3 is not constructive. Thank you.

  That said, I did not mean to attribute the quote to you @Firefangledfeathers, that was the revert comment given by @Hemiauchenia. Again, I will say it was not a valid explanation for reverting, because that content wasn't even removed and all citations were left intact. Furthermore, being the "most notable thing about him" is a statement of opinion, though I will stand corrected if there is a credible poll or survey showing otherwise.

  Please note, we wouldn't be discussing RFKJ or his opinions at all, if it weren't for all of the other biographical information that has again been largely omitted from the lead. The revisions were to add and organize this missing key biographical info into an appropriate lead/summary for an encyclopedic biography. I hope to see us continue to collaborate in a constructive manner to bring this up to WP standards. Thanks! Kalem014 (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  There is no point in a discussion with someone who thinks that "you're wrong about X, Y and Z" is uncivil. They will dismiss any reasoning against their position as "uncivil". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm having a hard time with that as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  There was no incivility in either direction. Seemed a polite request to keep it that way.

  Doesn't justify ignoring the content of the substantive points made? Shall we WP:Focus on content? 208.127.72.121 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Let's use this section to discuss how we can reach a consensus on an appropriate lead that meets the guidelines for a biography of a living person. The lead is incomplete as it stands.

  Would anyone contend any of the following points to include in the summary/lead? Which ones & why?

  1. Full name: Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954)

  2. Is an American environmental lawyer

  3. An author

  4. A member of the Kennedy political family

  5. A 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate.

  6. Advocates for environmentalism, renewable energy, human rights, peace (i.e., anti-war) and free speech.

  7. Well-known as an anti-vaccine activist

  8. Criticized for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.

  Are the existing citations sufficient to support 7 & 8?

  -- Kalem014 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have an issue with any of those facts. I think it misses the fact that Kennedy spreads anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories (thus leading to the criticism you mention). It's right up there with being RFK's son when it comes to sources of his notability (M.boli showed many sources showing so, I just collected a couple more) and we're cautioned against mentioning his family relationships in the first sentence per MOS:ROLEBIO. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

See my previous comment, where I surveyed the press coverage of his candidacy. Most of the reliable sources ID him as the anti-vaccine guy in the first or second sentences. Which isn't surprising considering that has literally been his job for the past decade.

JFK Jr. energetically flogs a raft of hooey, including AIDS denialism (HIV doesn't cause AIDS, infected people should stop taking their drugs), 5G opposition, Hunter Biden censorship, World Health Organization world-government conspiracy, you-name-it. Note that google searches get more hits on RFK Jr.'s anti-vax than environmental work. Regardless of his earlier history as an environmentalist, the lede should follow the lead of the reliable sources and immediately ID RFK Jr. as an anti-vaxer and misinformer. This article is unbalanced, giving insufficient prominence to his notability: producing a gusher of hooey. -- M.boli (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

If RFK Jr. was notable enough for an article before he became primarily known for anti-vaccine activism, then a good case can be made that overemphasizing his anti-vaccine stance is recentism. At the very least the tone of words like "propaganda" and "conspiracy theorist" are unencyclopedic when stated in wikivoice. Also, while it is true that there is not yet consensus for something other than the status quo, it's also clear that consensus does not favour the status quo. In addition to the above discussion, concerns about tone were raised below. It is not correct to state that only SPA and "fanboy" IP editors have expressed concern, as several longstanding editors such as myself and TFD have expressed concern as well. In any case, "who" is involved is not a reason to stonewall for the status quo, and it is especially inappropriate to declare an authority hierarchy based on how active particular users are, as Hemiauchenia does above. People are participating in this discussion in good faith, and there is not consensus for the status quo. Let's come to some sort of agreement that reflects everyone's concerns. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

If your reasoning If RFK Jr. was notable enough for an article before were valid - his anti-science activities go back almost 20 years, which is not recent - we would have to severely cut down the POTUS part of the Donald Trump article for the same reason, and do similar things in many other articles.

overemphasizing his anti-vaccine stance is recentism Overemphasizing is wrong by definition. The question is whether what the article does now is really "over"-emphasizing.

At the very least the tone of words like "propaganda" and "conspiracy theorist" are unencyclopedic when stated in wikivoice We have loads of RS that put it like that, and, as far as I know, not a single RS that contradicts those. Your tone reasoning is just a flavor of WP:IDLI.

have expressed concern as well Unless those concerns go beyond this flimsy attempt of reasoning, they do not matter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth was a famous thespian. One of the few people who could tour the United States and headline shows everywhere. My understanding is he was able to tour and perform on both sides during the war. Pretty unusual! He is certainly enough of a famous thespian in his own right to merit a Wikipedia article.

And by the way some sources accused Booth of spreading propaganda for the South, of being part of a conspiracy, and murder. But "propagandist" and "conspiracy" are unencyclopedic loaded terms. And we can't say "murder" in Wikipedia voice because he was never convicted of murder in a court of law. Besides this is only one thing during the later part of his career.

Yes, that is sarcasm. The Wikipedia article properly describes both aspects of Booth's career and notability.

There is a reason that reliable sources ID John Wilkes Booth as the man who murdered Lincoln, and reliable sources ID RFK Jr. as an anti-vax propagandist. It isn't "recentism." -- M.boli (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I second this argument. Not only has RFK Jr.'s anti-vaccine stances defined his career for the past few decades, but they define his current political undertaking. And it is also well-documented that his anti-vaccine stances are plain pseudo-scientific propaganda. Therefore, any rendition of the lead of this article ought to state this concept first and foremost, since it is an integral part of understanding the notability of RFK Jr.. To do anything less would be misleading. Panian513 Panian513 15:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for approaching WP:Godwin's Law here, but I would ask this question using the most unambiguous example available - Should the lead for the Adolf Hitler entry mention the genocide of 6 million jews "first and foremost"? Because it does not, and it is a good article.

Have we "whitewashed" Hitler, by not making this the primary focus or even mentioning this in the lead's first sentence? 208.127.72.121 (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Your argument is a false equivalence. First and foremost, Hitler is a deceased historical figure, and RFK Jr. is a living person, and therefore there are different procedures on Wikipedia when it comes to long-deceased versus living persons. Second of all, the first sentence of the Hitler article mentions his longest career position - that being dictator of Germany. The longest career position of RFK Jr. is his vaccine denialism. So of course the first sentence of this article ought to mention his work in anti-vaccine advocacy. Panian513 Panian513 15:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The question of living vs. deceased when conveying what the person is notable for in the lead seems to be a distinction without a difference. The question was on the so-called "whitewashing" argument, which can be applied to the deceased no differently than to the living.

People can be highly notable for reasons that have nothing to do with duration. A person may attain fame and notoriety for the events of a single day for example. Even still if we were to follow the duration argument, RFK Jr. has longest been notable for being a member of the Kennedy political family. Articles for several other Kennedy's include this in their leads, why are we omitting here?

The main argument against the current lead is not around what it says, but what it doesn't say. 208.127.72.121 (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

You're right, we treat living individuals differently than deceased individuals. According to WP:BLPBALANCE, "Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." Biographies of dead persons are generally given more latitude than biographies of living persons in this regard. I don't see any reason why simply wording the terms "conspiracy theory" and "propaganda" outside of wikivoice, and simply as a reflection of what the sources say, is an unreasonable request per BLP policy. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

For additional clarity, why not just say: "Kennedy's views on vaccines have been characterized as propaganda and conspiracy theories"? I have yet to hear a convincing case that this would somehow be "whitewashing." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This is what he does. This what reliable sources say he does. We don't write "The sun has been characterized as rising in the East." That would be malpractice. -- M.boli (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

News sources who rely predominantly upon pharma ad spending (COI) are in fact providing characterizations with regard to RFK Jr's beliefs and advocacy. These are not statements of fact, and they are infinitely less reliable than the reality, plainly observable to all of us, that the sun will rise in the east each day, as it has done each day for 4.5 billion years. False equivalence. 208.127.72.121 (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

That is the purpose of Big Pharma conspiracy theories: if you do not like what a source is saying and cannot be bothered to check the facts (or have checked them and found that they are against you), simply claim that the source is saying it because it has been bought by BIG PHARMA!!1!

Instantly discredits every reasoning on any subject, however sound and however right the source is. And of course the sort of trick you are using here is not valid.

BTW, WP:RS demands that we rule out sources known to be corrupt, and we do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

1) It is not "conspiracy theory" to identify sources with potential conflicts of interest. These sources should in fact, in their fiduciary duties to their shareholders, avoid biting the hand that does feed them:

"TV advertising spending in the United States accounts for 75% of the total ad spend"

[4]https://www.statista.com/statistics/953104/pharma-industry-tv-ad-spend-us/

"Pharmaceutical advertisers spent more than most other sectors, NBCU said, with an increase of nearly 40% in commitments (in 2022)."

[5]https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/nbcuniversal-ad-sales-grow-streaming-1235306951/

That said, this discussion demonstrates the ease with which one who identifies COI can be labeled or associated with "conspiracy theory" and dismissed, as is being done in the lead.

2) "Propaganda"/"Conspiracy theories" Authoritative? The main concern many are expressing on this page, is that editorial characterizations on a BLP are being presented as authoritative fact, as if they were equivalent to quote "the sun rising in the east", when they must be presented as what they are, characterizations:

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WP:NEWSORG 208.127.72.121 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

You did not need to repeat your bad reasoning. When somebody uses the sort of pseudo-argument you used, rejecting a source because it may theoretically be corrupt although there is no hint of evidence, it is already clear that their opinion is write-protected and that they cannot tell a good reason from a bad one.

Your reasoning is generally applicable to every subject and therefore worthless. Of course, you will repeat it again, but it will not help. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Keep it constructive and without prejudgment.

I will leave the COI concerns aside, but they are certainly not "worthless" or there wouldn't be extensive guidelines on it and related considerations.

Any thoughts on #2? 208.127.72.121 (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Commenting on content was exactly what I did. The content was worthless crap as well as a duplicate, and I pointed that out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Good day Hob. Might be a good time for a quick refresher on WP:CIVIL and WP:Stonewalling guidelines.

I will restate my last question here, to help ensure you aren't missing, ignoring or deflecting:

Is the use of the terms "Propaganda" & "Conspiracy theories" authoritative?

The main concern many are expressing on this page, is that editorial characterizations on a BLP are being presented as authoritative fact, as if they were equivalent to quote "the sun rising in the east", when they must be presented as what they are, characterizations:

WP:NEWSORG says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." 208.127.72.121 (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If you are trying to say that we use opinion pieces (Editorial commentary, analysis) as sources for facts, you need to point out which those supposed opinion pieces are. Vague insinuations are not enough.

Opinion pieces are marked as opinion pieces, so you cannot use your own judgement do determine whether something is an opinion piece. I checked the very first source, written by Seth Mnookin, and it is not an opinion piece, but that is as far as I am willing to do your work for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether online news sources sit neatly under an "Op-ed" column or not is besides the point in this day and age. The distinction has been completely blurred in online media.

The point remains, contestable assertions should not be provided as authoritative statements of fact in an encyclopedic entry, particularly for a BLP.

"Conspiracy theory is widely acknowledged to be a loaded term... Calling something a conspiracy theory (or someone a conspiracy theorist) is seen as an act of rhetorical violence, a way of dismissing reasonable suspicion as irrational paranoia."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.12285

As has been suggested repeatedly for months now (with good reason),

- We can say RFK Jr. "has been criticized for" spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.

- We can say RFK Jr. "is well-known as" an anti-vaccine activist.

We cannot make such authoritative statements without consideration to WP:WIKIVOICE, and we should be a bit more concerned for the disservice being done to WP by biographical content such as this. 208.127.72.121 (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The guy is literally called a conspiracy theorist in a variety of reliable sources. What's your contention, that nobody can be called a conspiracy theorist? What indicator would a conspiracy theorist need to meet before we could call then one?

1. "RFK Jr. spews conspiracy theories"
2. "...about his previous efforts to push conspiracy theories ..."
3. "Conspiracy theorist and challenger for Democratic presidential nomination"
4. "RFK Jr’s descent into conspiracy theories causing anguish for family and friends, report says"
5. "Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has attracted criticism for his history of sharing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about vaccines."

CT55555(talk) 16:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thx CT55555, but it is - as mentioned once - pigeon chess playing with JFK Jr. fanboys. It doesn't matter how many sources you provide. Their hero is sacrosanct. --Julius Senegal (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Julius Senegal Another false attack, this seems to be a common theme in your replies. I have no dog in the race beyond the credibility of WP, and if anything my suggestion adds credibility to the claims. So, your POV-based opposition is quite ironic.

@CT55555 Missing the point. As many have clarified in previous replies, we call him anything if cited in a reliable source AND provided it is written in WP:WIKIVOICE. e.g., "has been criticized for", "is well-known as", etc. 208.127.72.121 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Just count the "new" users, the IPs or the users having forgotten their login credentials for some time. Why are you ignoring the facts? You can go now. --Julius Senegal (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Please NOBITING, focus on content. Any comments on the specific concerns raised regarding WIKIVOICE? 208.127.72.121 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Please WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:STICK, "newcomer". --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• I support removal of vaccine conspiracy, anti-vaccine, etc content from the LEDE as it is WP:UNDUE weight for WP:LEDE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• And I support free beer for all as you need cannot be drunken enough to oversee arguments why this would be whitewahsing. --Julius Senegal (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Editor's voice re: "propaganda"/"conspiracy theories"

Sources cited refer to RFK Jr.'s views using these terms. However, I don't see why these claims need to be stated in the editor's voice. Why not follow standard procedure for fringe theorists to simply state what the sources say? For example, the lead section Deepak Chopra's article reads (emphasis mine):

• "His discussions of quantum healing have been characterised as technobabble."
• "The ideas Chopra promotes have regularly been criticized by medical and scientific professionals as pseudoscience."

My attempt to change the lead to reflect this style was reverted, and read as follows (emphasis added): "His views on vaccines and health-related topics have been described as propaganda based on conspiracy theories." The stated reason for the reversion was that there is no consensus for the "substantial" change, so I would like to know if there are any objections to this proposed change. My goal is simply to reflect the guidelines of WP:BLPSTYLE: "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Reality has gone way past criticized as propagandist and conspiracy theorist. That's what RFKJr does for a living. -- M.boli (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That's why I used described as, reflecting what the sources say. What is the point of stating the same in the editor's voice? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

We cannot use wikivoice to call someone a dummy. We can say "so-and-so called them a dummy." However, we do use wikivoice to say someone has a low IQ, if that's well established with RS and is notable and generally complies with WP:BLP. "Technobabble" is like the first case. "Anti-vaccine", "conspiracy theory", "pseudoscience", "alternative medicine", "pseudo medicine" are not. They are like the second case. "Propaganda" is a grey area IMO. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The change was unnecessary, the whole topic was discussed over and over again, see also FAQ above. --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Given the considerable amount of disagreement on the talk page, it seems as though there is not consensus on this point. Especially considering the recent news showing that a number of RFK's "conspiracy theories" have now been accepted as true or possibly true (for example the lab leak theory for covid which several government agencies now consider to be the most likely scenario.)

It should also be noted that the sources referencing conspiracy theories should not be considered RS when it comes to determining what is, or is not, a conspiracy theory.

If nothing else, I can see no downside for the change to a neutral voice as described above. It seems all arguments against this point rely upon original research or the opinions of editors for support. 71.236.144.204 (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, also the "considerable amount of disagreement" just started after Kennedy became candidate. Needless to mention that his fanboys try to whitewash this article to make him appear nicer. --Julius Senegal (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

How does WP:NOTAFORUM apply? Discussion about the appropriate use of wiki voice falls squarely within Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Obviously engagement with a page will increase as its subject becomes more prominent.

Saying editors who disagree about the page content are "fanboys try to whitewash this article to make him appear nicer" is inappropriate, Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Please address this point:

I can see no downside for the change to a neutral voice as described above. It seems all arguments against this point rely upon original research or the opinions of editors for support. 71.236.144.204 (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The downside is that we falsely depict facts as opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum in the sense that everyone tells what he thinks and in the end we decide sth in the middle. Wikipedia states what reliable sources are saying. As for false balance see WP:VALID. The topic has been thoroughly discussed, see above FAQ, and over and over again. So bring "new" arguments with "new" reliable sources.

And yes, ofc there is a vast influx of Kennedy fanboys - be it as IPs, new registered users or sleeper accounts "discovering" suddenly the article "for the first time". What a coincidence.--Julius Senegal (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I read the Wiki article for the first time a few months ago after having RFK Jr in my peripheral vision all of my life. Upon his candidacy I googled his name and the Wikipedia article is the first thing that came up. I hardly qualify as a fanboy. I noticed that somehow Wikipedia has become the arbiter of what is true and what isn't. The science or official version of events presented to you by the government or in the media isn't the ultimate truth of anything -- there is always scientific debate and a discussion of research that disagrees is a healthy thing in a democracy. It's how it should work. It's how it used to work. And the candidate himself has said that he is not anti-vax, only advocates for safe vaccines and against any mandates, so there is that. 2806:290:C800:6844:3549:D14B:B90:F5A9 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

He has stated over and over that he is not anti-vaccine, yet this label is repeated over and over in the media. He said it again recently in a video which I cannot find buried in all the "anti-vax" results. I found this article where there is a direct quote where, referring to Trump, he says:

“His opinion doesn’t matter but the science does matter and we ought to be reading the science and we ought to be debating the science. And that everybody ought to be able to be assured that the vaccines that we have — he’s very pro-vaccine, as am I — but [that] they’re as safe as they possibly can be.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/10/donald-trump-appoints-vaccine-critic-robert-kennedy-jr-to-panel-examining-vaccine-safety.html 2806:290:C800:6844:8942:6E30:74F8:4D0F (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

If he were pro-vax, he would not spread disinformation about vaccines that makes people skip them out of fear of non-existent dangers. He is a scientific know-nothing and cannot tell whether a vaccine is safe.

The experts can tell the difference, and they are what we should use as sources. Not him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

He's got a staff of more than 300 PhD research scientists and physicians checking everything that he has written. Anti-vax is a label that is being used to dismiss valid scientific dissent on the safety of vaccines. "Experts" disagree, and there is no ultimate scientific authority on anything. Science changes, new studies come out, others are debunked and that's how we get closer to the truth. That's the process, not censorship and dismissal. And that's not even to mention that a lot of the CDC and NIH data comes from the pharmaceutical companies themselves, and studies where somebody has a skin in the game can be biased. Trying to shut down discourse is the thing that is harmful. 2806:290:C800:2218:F991:DA86:1FEE:4D16 (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

And if I might add, I think your readership is questioning you here given the the number of "fanboys" making comments. Many people are seeing this entry for the first time and while it does mimic the mainstream media, it doesn't fit with reality. What happens if these government "experts" are wrong and that's not revealed until a decade from now, or worse, they suppress and dismiss the information? Why did Pfizer want to keep their research sealed for 75 years? Why are they not legally liable for any harm done to a person? There's already enough data coming out to seriously question the official narrative. The only point I am trying to make here is that I think the article should be more neutral and summarize the arguments rather than labeling and taking a position. 2806:290:C800:2218:F991:DA86:1FEE:4D16 (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

What happens if these government "experts" are wrong and that's not revealed until a decade from now Come back when that happens. Until then, we will use the knowledge we have now (which is that Kennedy's disinformation is spreading disease and killing children by convincing their parents and the parents of their neighbors not to protect them by vaccination). See WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"killing children by convincing their parents and the parents of their neighbors not to protect them by vaccination" Yep. At this point, Kennedy has probably caused more child deaths than the average serial killer. And he wants voters to reward him for his "good work" of eliminating people. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You do have this knowledge now! All you need to do is read. Read books and delve into these topics and you will be surprised. 2601:645:902:5D40:4150:E728:BEE7:C74C (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that agree with Kennedy, bring them. That is what this page is for. Not for vague complaints. See WP:FORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there any evidence for the existence of those more than 300 PhD research scientists and physicians, or is it just something he claimed? It does not sound credible. And the rest of your reasoning is just the usual "science has been wrong before, I am being suppressed, there is a conspiracy" bullshit pseudoscience proponents always use when people ask for actual evidence.

Look, it's very simple. The way to change this article is to first change the scientific consensus by hard facts (as you predicted will happen, in your And if I might add contribution; those more than 300 PhD research scientists and physicians could help with that), then the Wikipedia article will adapt. The Wikipedia article will not swap to Kennedy's position before the consensus does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The beauty of the thing you've got going here is that when one tries to cite sources to support their argument, you either dismiss them or have already deemed them "unreliable". It's a perfect little world where you can only cite the sources that support Wikipedia's editorial position, and you clearly have a position here. Even a direct quote from a person is dismmised because it is not true in your opinion. 2806:290:C800:2218:F991:DA86:1FEE:4D16 (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

That is a very superficial reasoning. You need to dig deeper. You need to learn how to judge the quality of scientific studies. I recommend Bad Science and Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. What Goldacre does is look at the actual studies and point out what is wrong with them, no matter who faked them, be it alt-med quacks or pharma shills.

What the antivax and other alt-med people do is just say "this is fake, the pharma lobby faked it" when they do not like the result. We, the science-based community, do not do that, notwithstanding your claim above that we do.

Can we stop this? This is not a forum, see WP:NOTFORUM. Go acquire competence (see WP:CIR), and come back when you know how to use valid reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

But if you want to answer my question above Is there any evidence for the existence of those more than 300 PhD research scientists and physicians instead of evading it, you can do so. It would be relevant for the article if it were actually true and not a convenient fairy tale. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It's just sheer logic, not faulty reasoning. It is pointless to chase down sources that you will dismiss.

Interestingly, it seems that Ben Goldacre wrote a book in 2012 stating the point I was making earlier that I think was characterized as a "conspiracy theory":

"We like to imagine that medicine is based on evidence and the results of fair testing and clinical trials. In reality, those tests and trials are often profoundly flawed. We like to imagine that doctors who write prescriptions for everything from antidepressants to cancer drugs to heart medication are familiar with the research literature about these drugs, when in reality much of the research is hidden from them by drug companies. We like to imagine that doctors are impartially educated, when in reality much of their education is funded by the pharmaceutical industry. We like to imagine that regulators have some code of ethics and let only effective drugs onto the market, when in reality they approve useless drugs, with data on side effects casually withheld from doctors and patients. All these problems have been shielded from public scrutiny because they are too complex to capture in a sound bite. Ben Goldacre shows that the true scale of..."

https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Pharma-Companies-Mislead-Patients/dp/0865478007

Yes, we can stop this. I know this won't change a thing and I'll leave to your own devices. 2806:290:C800:2218:F991:DA86:1FEE:4D16 (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It is pointless to chase down sources that you will dismiss If you gave us sources that are correct and serious and high-quality, and we dismissed them, you would have a wrong behavior on our side you could point to. But you do not have any such sources. You only have frauds and quacks and crackpots and ignoramuses publishing in predatory journals and blogs and YouTube and so on, and if you actually gave us those, everybody would be able to see that you got nothing, so it is a better strategy for you to just pretend to have good sources and insinuate that they would be rejected. Your very choice of strategy betrays the fact that you are bluffing. I predict that you will continue along those lines.

it seems that Ben Goldacre wrote a book in 2012 stating the point I was making earlier This page is for improving the article Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and you getting some tiny bit right (and the big picture wrong), has nothing to do with that. Kennedy is still propagating conspiracy theories according to reliable sources which agree with Goldacre on pretty much all points. See WP:NOTDUMB.

You keep evading my question Is there any evidence for the existence of those more than 300 PhD research scientists and physicians. It is obvious that that claim was also a bluff.

You keep misusing this page as a forum. Stop that. Give us the sources you claim to have, or go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no way or even inclination of independently verifying the number on CHD staff, and if I could, you have already discredited CHD on Wikipedia and that would not be considered a reliable source. Can you please point out where I sourced predatory journals and blogs and YouTube and so on? In this instance, I provided a reference to an article from CNBC where RFK Jr is directly quoted, but you decided that what he said isn't true based on your opinion. Previously, I have provided citatioons to PubMed, but that wasn't good enough. Doing a little research, the most prominent people speaking out about vaccine safety have incredibly already been discredited on Wiki, but some of the PubMed citations I cited did not include these authors. And round we go. I'm figuring out that this just really doesn't matter that much and I'm giving up because as you have said "they won't win". 2806:290:C800:5B04:B884:F0B8:EC15:A60E (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who or what you mean by CHD. But I guess it is an admission that your more than 300 PhD research scientists and physicians were a bluff.

And I did not say that you used those sources, I only suspect that you will, since that is what proponents of pseudoscientific crap on Wikipedia usually do.

PubMed is not a source, it is a listing of sources fulfilling a certain minimum standard, for use by scientists in their own research. On Wikipedia, you need WP:MEDRS for medical questions, which is a much higher standard. If you understood how science works, you would know that most scientific publications turn out to be flukes and that those papers that analyze other papers have more credibility.

They won't win because they are easily shown to be wrong. If you had read Goldacre, you would know how to do that too.

You keep misusing this page as a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I keep responding to your attacks. PubMed entries are primarily peer-reviewed articles that reach conclusions. They are there to be cited, ignored or interpreted. Not only is original research not acceptable to Wiki, but you insist that any interpretations are valid only if they are interpreted by your "reliable sources" which happen to agree with you. It's the circular argument once again, because anyone who has a different interpretation than your "reliable sources" is "unreliable". Have fun citing yourself and only those that agree with you into irrelevance. 2806:290:C800:5D2F:409B:7A7A:5CB5:C63B (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Just read WP:MEDRS. It will tell you that peer-reviewed articles is not enough of a criterion for inclusion. That is perfectly in line with how science works. There is nothing circular about it because there are well-defined criteria on what good and bad papers look like. Read Goldacre or somebody else like that, and you may learn how to tell the difference yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep calling yourself "we"? 220.81.203.104 (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this why you (the apparent self-appointed Wikipedia Lord for this article) allows citing Vanity Fair and Huffington Post as 'professional' sources to establish the subject's propagandist views?

If so, am I correct to say that we should cite tabloids like you, and we will be on the verge of crafting a great encyclopedia article here? Kindly get off your high chair and step into the real world. 220.81.203.104 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• I too am opposed to use of the term "conspiracy theorist" in WP:wikivoice, on this article as well as others. Just state what the article subject has stated. Wikipedia is becoming a label farm, we are as bad as the supposed bad-actors we are covering. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  What, do conspiracy theorists not exist? Seems to me that ignoring reliable sources because we're afraid of negative labels is a much bigger problem. It's not our place to editorialize. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody is talking about ignoring reliable sources. The suggestion is that we simply report what the sources say without editorializing, i.e., doing so in wikivoice. Can somebody please address this? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Kennedy is one of the leading figures in promoting conspiracy theories and other false information about vaccines from the "vaccines cause autism" to covid. This has been so well covered in reliable sources that any attempt to downplay it violates weight.

This isn't similar to Jill Stein, whose comments were twisted by political opponents to portray her as an anti-vaxxer. A fact check by Snopes found the claim to be false.[6]

The only possible concern is Tone. I would avoid judgmental terms such as conspiracy theorist and propaganda.

TFD (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"I would avoid judgmental terms such as conspiracy theorist and propaganda." Why? Call a spade a spade. He is just as much of a crackpot as Andrew Wakefield. Dimadick (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

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

We don't write for example, "Bill Clinton is an adulterer who served as U.S. president," "George W. Bush is a convicted criminal," "Dick Cheney is an accused war criminal," Trump "is a liar." Instead, we describe the behavior. Articles don't even refer to convicted as criminals unless that was their main reason for notability.

When you write an opinion piece, of course, this type of language may be acceptable, depending on the medium used. The more partisan the medium, the more acceptable it would be. TFD (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and propaganda are pretty clearly defined terms that have applications where only conspiracy theorists and propagandists would reject their use. This is one such area. The sources we get them from are not opinion pieces. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference in tone between saying someone promotes conspiracy theories and saying they are a conspiracy theorist, just as there is a difference in tone between saying George W. Bush drove impaired and saying he is a criminal. This term and "propaganda" are Loaded language: " rhetoric used to influence an audience by using words and phrases with strong connotations....Loaded words and phrases have significant emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning."

So for example, it's fine to tweet "Don't vote for Kennedy! He's a conspiracy theorist who writes propaganda against vaccination!" But it's not the tone one would expect an encyclopedia to use. Articles are supposed to provide the facts, not persuade readers, especially by appealing to their emotions. TFD (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't vote for Kennedy is indeed unencyclopedic. If you find in the article, please delete it. I cannot find it there at the moment. I did replace "conspiracy theorist" by "conspiracy theory" as requested. It does not make much difference in my eyes, but if it makes you happy, why not? I guess there will be demands to remove it too, but we have to follow the reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It's the difference between how a news report in the ''NYT'', ''WaPo'', MSNBC would describe him and how one of their columnists or talk show hosts might. Again, articles should use the tone used in reliable sources, rather than that used in opinion pieces. BTW if you don't think that calling someone a conspiracy theorist is telling people not to vote for them, who was the last conspiracy theorist you voted for? TFD (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

So, your complaint is that the article makes you think of non-encyclopedic wordings that are not there ("Don't vote for Kennedy"). There is no way to avoid things like that. Please WP:FOCUS on what the article actually says instead of inventing stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree mostly with your procedural points, but you’re using language that could be inflammatory and going into questioning on substantive issues then chiding that substance should not be argued here as it’s NOTAFORUM when he responds to you. Agree it’s NOTAFORUM, so you shouldn’t be engaging in these debates either; and inflammatory insults are not appropriate, especially with someone who seems to be a relative newcomer.

RFK says there are 300 researchers and clinicians affiliated with Childrens Health Defense (CHD) but I’m pretty sure they aren’t staff; they are some type of scientific advisory board or the like. He also says they have an extensive fact checking operation. I think, if true, these are reasons for someone, IRL (as opposed to someone editing Wikipedia) to credit what CHD says to some extent, but yes, under Wikipedia RS policy, CHD should not be a source.

Seems to me, RFK’s defense of the charge of “anti-vaxxer,” and “conspiracy theorist” should be included on the page and framed as RFK’s response.

I agree with the change you allowed from “anti-vaxxer” to “promotes anti-vaccine” propaganda. Thanks. JustinReilly (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

you’re using language that could be inflammatory Who are you talking to and what are you talking about? TFD is a "relative newcomer"?

RFK says there are 300 researchers Progress! Now we know that that comes from RFKJ. Next step: a link to it. Then we will have an unreliable source. Next step after that: Find a reliable one.

I think, if true "If true" is one crucial condition. There is no reason to believe it is true since all we have is hearsay. Even if it is true, what does he mean by "researcher"? Someone who knows how to google a word? Even if they are real researchers, it means that they seem to not have published enough scientific papers for their opinion to be even noticed by the scientific community as a serious alternative to the current consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think we should largely just ignore all the WP:SPA conspiracy and pseudoscience accounts that come here to try and whitewash this article due to the subject running for President. Silverseren^C 20:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. And we should also ignore all the emotive language used by people who oppose his candidacy. TFD (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think anybody would argue with that. But several would dispute the implication that only "SPA conspiracy and pesudoscience accounts" have any legitimate objections to the present wording. To ignore all discussion on that basis would be WP:STONEWALLING. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with @HappyWanderer15. There are going to be people coming here because of his new greater prominence in the national discourse. That’s not a reason in and of itself to discount someone’s input. If someone is a SPA then his opinion should be discounted to some extent but not completely, IMO: JustinReilly (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Concur with Silver. I promise after JFK Jr. will fail in the elections, his fanboys will turn their interest in other things. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  You language implies that you have taken a position in the election and have disparaging views of Kennedy supporters. That's fine but you should not express those opinions here. Incidentally, considering that 90% of Dems received covid vaccinations, and Kennedy is standing at 20% in the polls, it seems that at least half his supporters are discounting his anti-vaxxer history. TFD (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  What you think about me is irrelevant and I have not asked about it. Below the next fanboy tries to whitewash the article's lead, so this prooves me again right. --Julius Senegal (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Neither TFD nor myself have suggested such extensive changes to the lead. We are bringing up concerns about tone and the use of wikivoice, not advocating wholesale changes based on a distrust of the sources. Both of us are longtime editors of Wikipedia. It is disingenuous to simply lump in what we are raising with the concerns of IP or recently registered "fanboys." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not only is he a conspiracy theorist, he's number 2 in the top 12 (click link in NPR to see top 12) social media conspiracy theorists. I detail below the multiple reliable sources that describe him as such. Here's one example. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes

Attempts to paint him otherwise are attempts to whitewash. CT55555(talk) 01:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've created an RFC on the subject below. Tend to agree, the terms seem pejorative and UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The evidence for the two claims in the first sentence are too weak.

Firstly I apologize for continuing the epic quest of the first sentence. Nobody has taken a dive into these sources though...

So, the first claim is that RFK Jr, "has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda". The first article, Scientific American. "Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda" -- There is no source/link so this isn't actually evidence, it's just a random statement from the author. Second article, NBC News. "A new video" -- no video is linked, similar to the problem in the first article. "was recently banned from Instagram" -- this is a red herring fallacy, and I suspect it is used to make RFK Jr look bad since it adds nothing to the main point of the article. "for spreading Covid-19 vaccine conspiracy theories" -- no link. Let's move on to the third article, AP News. "he launched into an anti-vaccine rant" -- link? "people assembled for a far right conference" -- how do you know they're far-right? Perhaps some poll was taken, but that is not in the article. "legal, scientific and public health consensus" -- links? "which uses slanted information, cherry-picked facts and conspiracy theories to spread distrust of the COVID-19 vaccines" -- links? This article has no video of the conference and is seriously lacking in sufficient evidence otherwise.

The second claim is that RFK Jr, "as promoted health-related conspiracy theories". Before I dive into the articles, let me give some definitions of conspiracy theory. "'conspiracy' - an agreement among conspirators. 'conspirator' - one who conspires. 'conspire' - to plan secretly an unlawful act." -- The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. "'conspiracy' - a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." -- Oxford American Desk Dictionary & Thesaurus. The first article, The Hill. "Kennedy, a conspiracy theorist and prominent anti-vaxxer" -- no links. Second source, The Wrap. "Shortly after, Hines addressed her husband’s claims..." -- what follows is RFK Jr's wife's opinions about RFK Jr's Nazi reference. This has nothing to do with conspiracy's, as relating to the definitions above. Third article, The Guardian. "Kennedy has campaigned on environmental issues but is also a leading vaccines conspiracy theorist" -- no link. I see journalists stating that he's a conspiracy theorist, but there's no stronger evidence to back it up.

If you do not see an issue with what I've pointed out so far please consider the following scenario. If I were to write, and publish, an article on substack and state, "RFK Jr has not promoted anti-vaccine propaganda, nor has he promoted health-related conspiracy theories." without a link/source to my evidence, then my claim would be just as strong evidence as the articles above saying he has promoted these things.

In conclusion, these sources are insufficient as evidence to support the claims that RFK Jr 'has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories'. Stronger, sufficient, evidence is required to backup such claims. Until such evidence presents itself, the first sentence should be removed. Cmsmith93 (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a requirement for the article to give reliable sources.

There is no requirement for the reliable sources to give reliable sources.

"Talking a dive into sources" means to second-guess the sources. We should not do that because that would be WP:OR. OR is always based on the assumption by the Wikipedia editor that they are more competent than all the groups of people who are involved in creating the reliable sources. That may be the case in a very few cases, but in general, it is just the Dunning-Kruger effect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"There is a requirement..." I'm not exactly sure what you mean or how this is relevant. Could you expand on this? Is there a reliable sources list for Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia believe everything one of those sources states is 100% true 100% of the time? I didn't say that the sources needed another source. I said the sources needed stronger evidence.

"OR is always based on the assumption by the Wikipedia editor that they are more competent than all the groups of people who are involved in creating the reliable sources." I don't understand this. Could you rephrase? Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

""Talking a dive into sources" means to second-guess the sources. We should not do that because that would be WP:OR" What do you mean by this? Are you saying that I am making a claim, and so my claim is OR? Or something else? Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean WP:RS demands that we use reliable sources. It does not demand, as you seem to think, that the reliable sources give reliable sources. Why is that difficult to understand?

What do you mean by this? I mean that you should read WP:OR. What you are doing is not what WP:RS demands, namely using what the RS say. You want to apply your own thoughts. That is called OR. We do not do that. The reason we do not do that is that Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources write and not what some random person on the internet (you) thinks about it. You may think that you know it better than the source, and that may even be true now and then, but we cannot make exceptions. If you think the reliable source is wrong, publish that in another reliable source yourself. Then we can use it. Not before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you think a supposed 'reliable source' is more important to have than reliable information?

I did read OR. I'm not applying my own thoughts -- making a claim. Please re-read my OP. Cmsmith93 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It does not matter what I think. The rules tell us to use what RS say, and to disregard your analysis of what RS say. Just one example: let me give some definitions of conspiracy theory is completely irrelevant. RS say conspiracy theory, so conspiracy theory it is, no matter what a random person on the internet (you) thinks about it.

You do not understand how Wikipedia works, and it seems are not even trying to understand it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You are being incredulous. You know perfectly well the epistemic barrier of determining the reliability of a given source. You like these sources as they are because they describe RFK Jr. as you’d like him to be described. You are okay with the use of words such as “conspiracy theorist”, “dangerous” and “spreader of misinformation” despite the subjectivity of these terms.

A more passive voice can absolutely be used to describe RFK Jr.. I think it’s a shame that some people are too afraid to let a more objective description of him be written, and have resorted to locking this article to prevent that from happening. HistorianFromSyracuse (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that interrogating sources is WP:OR, but agree with editors that want to keep the antivax and conspiracy labels in the lede. OR is clear in its application: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research... This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. OR is banned inside the article. OR is is not barred when making decisions about what to include. For example, if an AP article is written by an author who has been discredited for fabricating sources for articles, the evidence of authors unreliability may be OR, but is still relevant in determining whether or not to include the source.

That being said, here the sources are fine. OP has not provided convincing evidence that the sources are being misused or that they are unreliable. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

What you are talking about is a more exact assessment of the reliability of sources based on what is known about the reliability of the author. That is not what this discussion was about anyway, but of course you are right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

MOS:CITELEAD directs us to not normally cite things in the lead if they are cited elsewhere. I spent time today writing The Real Anthony Fauci and in doing so read many reliable sources that describe him as a pusher of conspiracy theories. Here are some:

"Conspiracy theorist"

"The environmental lawyer turned conspiracy theorist"

"Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has attracted criticism for his history of sharing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about vaccines."

"The Anti-Vaccine Propaganda of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr."

"Take anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the "Disinformation Dozen" identified by the center, who has promoted the long discredited idea that vaccines are linked to autism." CT55555(talk) 01:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Hob Gadling. If a source is considered reliable, as Scientific American and NBC News and the Associated Press most definitely are, then it is simply not the job of Wikipedia editors to insist that reliable sources provide sources or links to what they used to produce their reporting. That would lead to Turtles all the way down reasoning where Wikipedia editors interrogate the source's source's source's source's source. If three reliable sources says something that is neither contested nor contradicted by other reliable sources, then there is simply no valid reason to keep it out of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Considering pharmaceutical industry TV advertising spending in the United States accounts for 75% of the total ad spend, NBC News has a conflict of interest with regard to topics of financial concern to pharma. They are not a reliable source on related topics.

[7]https://www.statista.com/statistics/953104/pharma-industry-tv-ad-spend-us/ 208.127.72.121 (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

(cont.) "Pharmaceutical advertisers spent more than most other sectors, NBCU said, with an increase of nearly 40% in commitments (in 2022)."

[8]https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/nbcuniversal-ad-sales-grow-streaming-1235306951/ 208.127.72.121 (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

See above regarding the purpose of Big pharma conspiracy theories. You are caught in an intellectual black hole. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I am in an "intellectual black hole", because I pointed out and provide supporting references, which suggest a potential conflict of interest? And for insisting the we uphold some of the most basic and fundamental of WP guidelines - That we do not present editorial commentary as authoritative fact regarding whose ideas we call "propaganda" and who we label a "conspiracy theorist"?

No. I'm merely insisting upon encyclopedic voice in the lead for a BLP. Can we try? 208.127.72.121 (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

See above. We do not need to have the same sham discussion twice. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. 208.127.72.121 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Labelling concern about encyclopedic voice a "sham" is nothing more than thinly-veiled stonewalling and POV pushing. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

That is why I am not Labelling concern about encyclopedic voice a "sham". I am correctly calling a sham piece of reasoning a sham piece of reasoning. Dismissing sources with vague handwaving about Big Pharma is a piece of sham reasoning.

When big-pharma-corrupted scientists fake studies, other scientists can tell that they did. Read Ben Goldacre's "Bad Pharma", where he does exactly that. That is the correct way to fight bad science. Not dismissing the results of good science one does not like by baselessly claiming it is bad science. Can we stop this? It has nothing to do with improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

What makes those sources "reliable"? Does Wikipedia have a list of sources they've deemed reliable?

I didn't say the source articles needed to have other sources. I said the evidence is weak and needs to be stronger -- please see the title of my comment and the scenario I gave. Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say Yes you did.

• There is no source/link so this isn't actually evidence
• no video is linked
• "he launched into an anti-vaccine rant" -- link?

Maybe you should gather more Wikipedia experience before jumping into contentious topics. A few more points:

The lead of an article does not even need any sources - see WP:LEDECITE. The same things are sourced further down in the body of the article.

It is consensus in science that Kennedy's ideas about vaccination are false. The rules say that we can only use sources that actually mention Kennedy. Those will not go into depth because it is common knowledge among science-literate people that his antivaxer crap is crap. The sources in articles like Andrew Wakefield, Thimerosal, MMR vaccine and autism go into detail about that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"Yes you did." Sources and evidence are two different things. Fox News, CNN, The Atlantic, Nature, etc could be used as sources. Evidence is data, video, images or photos, etc.

"Maybe you should..." you've turned to insults and bad faith so I won't be responding to you again. Cmsmith93 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources and evidence are two different things This is sophism. There is no source/link literally demands that the source give a source. no video is linked demands a that the source link a video, which would be a source.

Not continuing this losing battle is a great idea, although the reason for it is bad because telling an inexperienced person that they are inexperienced is not an insult. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

What makes those sources "reliable"? Does Wikipedia have a list of sources they've deemed reliable? Yes, the list of sources that editors have agreed, by consensus, as reliable here: WP:RSPSOURCES CT55555(talk) 11:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"generally reliable" is the verbiage consistently used throughout that page for what they find to be a reliable source. So the Wikipedia editors/administrators are aware that even though they may deem a source 'reliable', that same source can have incorrect information. Cmsmith93 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is less about whether or not the sources are reliable, but rather whether or not the sources are hyperbolic. Many sources are considered reliable because they hold opinions and write about subjects with enough spin such that a plurality of people will not find them disagreeable enough for the source to lose reputation.

The first link in CT55555’s post above to The Guardian article is an example of persuasive writing designed to confirm the biases of and audience who wants RFK Jr.’s reputation to sustain damage and further amass extant confusion confusion. Anyone with a critical mind who reads that article and sees that ‘meditation’ and ‘prayer’ have been oversimplified in the article’s title as “having conversations with the dead” can sense the myopic, narrow view of this otherwise “reliable” source which can be conveniently used as a footnote for wikipedia.

Furthermore, this comes off to most wikipedia users as petty. Just because you’ve found a reliable source that describes a subject a certain way does not mean that the voice in which that subject is written of is neutral snd objective, because other reliable sources and other perspectives exist.

I hope this attitude around epistemology in language on Wikipedia changes, or it is going to seriously damage the reputation of Wikipedia for the worse. HistorianFromSyracuse (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to read suggested replacement articles, but please make sure they're worthwhile. The title of The Guardian article reads, "Robert F Kennedy Jr says he has ‘conversations with dead people’", which makes him sound insane. In the The Free Press article, where the comment came from, you'll read he was referring to 'meditation and prayer' where he talks to his 'uncle and father'. That's a really personal thing and it's pretty disturbing that someone would go that route to take a jab at someone else. Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

A few things things,

1) Another source was added; https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/210106-The-Anti-Vaxx-Playbook.pdf. This PDF just quotes RFK Jr saying things the CCDH disagrees with and doesn't actually provide evidence to prove RFK Jr is wrong about anything. It's actually quite lazy. I think the easiest example of this is providing evidence to disprove this quote by RFK Jr, "the risk of dying from Covid if you are under 20 is zero." We can all tell this is something RFK Jr is most definitely exaggerating, but you could still show he's wrong by proving links to say something like this... https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Sci_Brief-Children_and_adolescents-2021.1. You can download that document and the deaths for 'newborns' through 'young adults' can be found at the bottom of page 2. According to that report it's not zero. This CCDH report is another bad resource for evidence of these claims because the evidence is severely lacking.

2) Here are videos of him talking about vaccines...

https://www.wmur.com/article/closeup-kennedy-will-put-himself-to-the-test-of-nh-voters/43678129 (vaccines discussion in the video starts just after 8:00). Supposedly, he and his children are vaccinated.

https://news.sky.com/story/robert-f-kennedy-jr-nephew-of-jfk-to-challenge-biden-for-democratic-presidential-nomination-12851090. He's for investigating Moderna, J&J, and Pfizer. He's supposedly losing money to his charity, not gaining any from it. About halfway through the video he counters the CDC's information with, "show me the scientific study", so he's pro-science about the vaccines.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-covid-orthodoxy-faucis-legacy/id1532976305?i=1000583866191. He constantly talks about how he is leaning on evidence to make his conclusions.

3) How do I talk to the actual editors on here? It looks like I'm getting other random people who cannot change the article. Cmsmith93 (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

*I've created an RFC on this subject below. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

Change: Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer and writer who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda[2][3][4] and health-related conspiracy theories.[5][6][7]

To: Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, writer and 2024 U.S. Presidential candidate.

Reasoning: Stating that a person such as Mr. Kennedy, a prominent social servant running for political office, has promoted "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories" in the opening summary of a living biography, demonstrates an unacceptable negative bias, as these topics are controversial and the truth behind these matters continues to unfold. Wikipedia's policy clearly states that potentially libelous or misleading information about individuals such as Mr. Kennedy should be promptly removed. Mountaindragon (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see FAQ at the top of this page Cannolis (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

We should avoid using FAQ for status quo stonewalling particularly for BLP. FAQ also says "Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion." 208.127.72.121 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead of the article John Wilkes Booth says he "was an American stage actor who assassinated United States President Abraham Lincoln." It doesn't say he was an assassin or murderer. The article on Adolf Hitler does not begin by saying he was a murderer or that he was a conspiracy theorist who promoted propaganda. (He was btw an anti-vaxxer.)

What is the reason for using a polemical tone for RFK that is not used for far worse people?

TFD (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

And the lede for RFK Jr.'s article says he "has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theores." Which, if I read your comment correctly, is what you just suggested. M.boli (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Randy, not how things work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose Wait until the primaries begin or when he drops out. The article looks good enough to merit its own article in the meantime. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose There seems to be enough sources to merit its own article. Aneirinn (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2023

The article currently states Kennedy's wife, Mary, hanged herself in their Mt. Kisco, NY home. The home is actually in Bedford, NY. This is a fairly common error because their ZIP Code is shared between Mt. Kisco and this part of Bedford. Note the current source is the Bedford Voice. Here is the AP'S coverage: https://www.statesboroherald.com/world/ap-source-rfk-jrs-wife-hanged-herself/

Thank you! Lukevdl (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Erledigt The sources in the article Mary_Richardson_Kennedy state it was Bedford. RudolfRed (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"I had all six of my children vaccinated"

David Gorski has something to say about that. [9] --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that! Gorski takes apart RJK Jr.'s protest "I am pro-vaccine. I had all six of my children vaccinated," larded with anti-vax dog whistles. Do you have ideas on how to better contextualize this assertion in this article? -- M.boli (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"Science-Based Medicine" .org is a blog, not a reliable source. WP:USERGENERATED 208.127.72.121 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the perennial sources board says: Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. WP:SBM Miner Editor (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

To save others the time I wasted reading this, here is what David Gorski's blog "has to say about it":

"Kennedy has mentioned that he’s gotten all his kids vaccinated. Presumably this was all before he got interested in vaccines and learned of their safety issues. It’s possible that, given what he knows today, he would not vaccinate his kids, or at least limit the number of vaccines they got. It’s easy to imagine that this is something he’s changed his mind about...

Possible? It can never be proven definitively, but I’d bet money that if RFK Jr. were to have any more children he wouldn’t get any of them vaccinated against anything."

Mind-reading, and wagers, from a blog no less, is the basis upon which we'd like to add context? Can we be serious. 208.127.72.121 (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not we cite SBM, the lengthy book quote is undue. I think it would be reasonable to say something as short as "Kennedy denies being anti-vaccine." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The context refuting RFK Jr.'s self-serving "I am pro-vaccine" claim is his career. The quote from Gorski would be:

[H]is claims to be "fiercely pro-vaccine" notwithstanding, RFK Jr. demonstrated himself to be, in reality, fiercely antivaccine

However I also note Gorski's essay contains mind-reading, speculative wagering, and rhetorical questions. If there were a reliable source saying the obvious--RFK's protestation is contradicted by his career--we could include that to accompany his quote. Absent that, I'm not sure what this Wikiepdia article should say: simply leave the quote as-is, or put in the shorter statement proposed by @Firefangledfeathers. -- M.boli (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Shorter statement is better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Incredibly biased article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

My request is to remove the anti-vaccine propaganda from Robert F Kennedy Jr’s descriptor. There is no proof nor justification to call what he represents propaganda. 2600:1700:118A:2B80:4C14:8E13:10EA:3959 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done You evidently misunderstand the standards for includability when you say " There is no proof..." for categorizing his work as "propaganda", because there are four solid sources immediately following the text in question. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not "proof" but the level and quality of coverage in reliable sources as outlined in WP:RS... I recommend you read it. Miner Editor (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC on use of terms in first sentence

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

Discussion

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

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

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

• Comment I would avoid the term "propaganda," which is perorative, and therefore violates Tone. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "the term is often a pejorative one tending to connote such things as the discredited atrocity stories and deceptively stated war aims of World Wars I and II, the operations of the Nazis’ Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, and the broken campaign promises of a thousand politicians."[10] I don't think that comparing people to Hitler is effective polemics and it certainly isn't good style for an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• See also: Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 2 § Anti-vaccine advocate (though it may well be propaganda). ––FormalDude (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I too would avoid the pejorative word "propaganda" on WP:TONE grounds. If they must be included, terms like "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories" should not be stated in wikivoice. Instead, it should be stated dispassionately what the sources say. See Deepak Chopra for some examples of more appropriate wording: "His discussions of quantum healing have been characterised as technobabble"; "The ideas Chopra promotes have regularly been criticized by medical and scientific professionals as pseudoscience." (emphasis mine). HappyWanderer15 (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Polling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I think he's better known for this[11]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Here's how he is described in Time, which is typical of reliable sources: "environmental lawyer, prolific author, master falconer, Hollywood husband, and anti-vaccine crusader."[12] Maybe the Biden campaign will succeed in making him best known as an anti-vaxxer, which is his major negative among Democrats. But we're not paid to do their work for them. TFD (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable sources speak of him pushing propaganda:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Remove (ideally) or move the pejoratives to a second sentence (second choice ). This fails to comply with MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE in it fails "avoiding subjective or contentious terms". I see this failure starting to spread across many wiki articles, not only this article. If anyone is non-mainstream they are labeled a conspiracy theorist (or any other pejorative term) by hit-piece publications and then we wikipedia editors use that to dog-pile on top. There are few neutral publications these days, and many of the RS listed above are far from neutral in regards to their positions on USA's politics. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove 'propaganda' but keep 'conspiracy theory'. "Propaganda" is an inflammatory term that adds no information other than one's disapproval of RFK Jr. It doesn't even imply falsehood, since e.g. war propaganda can be partially or completely true. The fact that mainstream media uses the term is an indication of their falling standards of professionalism, which have cost them dearly in reputation and public trust. Wikipedia should not emulate their decline. "Conspiracy theory" is not NPOV either, but since there's no alternate neutral term that describes the same concept, and since some conspiracy theorists embrace the term, I'm in favor of keeping the term. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content - The quotes from the sources listed describe him as this, and we could easily find and add many more sources which say the same that already exist in this article.---Avatar317^(talk) 05:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Neither in the first sentence - Not as written as it seems more interested in condemnation than information. Some - fairly universally - used descriptor such as "anti-vaccine activist", possibly would be apt in the first sentence. The proposed/present text is vague "promoted … health-related conspiracy theories", when what he appears to be known for iro 'health' is anti-vax proseletysing, not other health-related CTs. I'm inclined to agree with Adoring nanny, that Putting this kind of criticism into the first sentence is pretty much always wrong., but a minimum requirement to do so is near universal use of these highly critical descriptors and it being the sole claim to notability. I see substantial, but not universal use of these 'labels', and he clearly has other claims to notability. Delaying and expanding the coverage of his "bad science", allows a more nuanced, informative (and informed) coverage of the topic IMO, apart from avoiding an opening sentence seemingly designed to "shut down" discussion before any actual info is imparted.Pincrete (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Split the sentence in two - Per above. The claims are sourced well and should not be removed, but to me the prose of the sentence comes off very strong. It may read better if split. The sentences could be "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, politician, and writer." and "He has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories." They should of course remain in the same paragraph the lead sentence currently occupies. LVMH11 (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources

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

• NYT[13] the 69-year-old environmental lawyer and vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr
• ABC[14] Vaccines are mentioned only briefly. A whole bunch of other sites say that ABC edited them out. The ones I saw were non-RS, i.e. the NY post here[15], but I imagine one could find the claim in an RS somewhere. By my procedure above, this would not count, but it's still interesting.
• NPR[16] Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a climate-change activist and vaccine skeptic
• CBS[17]Kennedy, a nephew of President John F. Kennedy and the son of his slain brother Robert F. Kennedy, was once a best-selling author and environmental lawyer who worked on issues such as clean water.

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

• NBC[18] Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has attracted criticism for his history of sharing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about vaccines.
• BBC[19] (para. breaks omitted): The 69-year-old is the son of assassinated Senator Robert F Kennedy and nephew of President John F Kennedy. The environmental lawyer's campaign treasurer, John E Sullivan, confirmed the filing on Wednesday. Mr Kennedy is an outspoken anti-vaccine campaigner. Instagram removed his account in 2021 for "repeatedly sharing debunked claims"
• CNN[20] Instagram announced Sunday it had lifted its ban on Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the anti-vaccine activist who has launched a presidential bid, two years after it shut down Kennedy’s account for breaking its rules related to Covid-19.

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2023

Dear Sir/Madam, having reviewed RFJ Jnrs recent political and health related statements, it is patently clear he is not 'anti-vaccine', nor is he a conspiracy theorist. He simply states there are nuances in vaccine safety which he wishes to be more openly debated and there may be potential conflict of interests in the American healthcare system. These are not unreasonable statements or lines of debate. Furthermore, the citations provided to backup the assertion he is a conspiracy theorist seem to mostly be tabloid press articles, none of which seem to posess a hint of objectivity. I would like to suggest the description and tone of the introduction be ammended to refect the fact that making a contrarian point of order about a given political policy of the day does not automatically make one a conspiracy theorist.

I would like to change:

'writer who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories'

to:

'writer who has controversially written and campaigned for greater debate on the subject of vaccine safety and potential conflicts of interest within Americas health care system'

Or something to that effect. Thanks. Hendon1935 (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You are about the 200th person who wants this and does not get it. See the archives for the reasons why we will not do this. But WP:FALSEBALANCE is a good read for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

the first paragraph

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

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