Jump to content

Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Possibly useful

Robert Kennedy Jr’s racist, antisemitic and xenophobic views go back decades, report says (Guardian). Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There are several recent articles in Science-Based Medicine focused on RFK Jr, too. This one talks about the bioweapon comments. VintageVernacular (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Rearrangement of lead

No content was lost. We should not cover the same topic in two different places in the lead, so I reworked the lead. I moved the last paragraph of the lead up and combined it with existing content in the first sentence. I made all of that the second paragraph. Now the first paragraph is totally uncontroversial, while we do not bury the topics for which he is best known.

I hope this change will make all the objections above a moot issue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the last edit is a bit premature as the still ongoing RFC above is specifically about the first sentence and controversial terms. Cannolis (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
But doesn't it resolve several of the complaints? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Making the first paragraph "totally uncontroversial" merely for the sake of being uncontroversial isn't warranted, IMO. Absent a consensus about what complaints actually need to be resolved, that's not a kind of edit that we should do. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
XOR'easter, I can assure you that the fact my first sentence was "totally uncontroversial" was not an attempt to bury or hide the controversial stuff. On the contrary. My version made it more prominent. Literally use your eyes to LOOK at it! My version made the vaccine stuff very prominent, more so than the current version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
In the RfC above, one !vote says that the mentions of "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories" definitely belong in the first sentence. Another says It is appropriate to have these words at the very start of the lead. Another says I support the inclusion of conspiracy theory (even if in the first sentence) while narrowly coming down against the term "propaganda". A reply in a discussion chain says, And like his environmental work, his antivaccine work should be represented in the first sentence. The question of what belongs at the very top of the article is very much a part of the as-yet-unclosed RfC. XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Replaced "debunked" with "questionable" (the source used for 'debunked' was February, 2021, awhile back in covid-years) and was reverted. "Questionable" seems the better choice of the two. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Blaming Hank Aaron's death on a COVID vaccine has not become less debunked over time. There might be a better word, but "questionable" seems too weak an adjective. XOR'easter (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Did Kennedy blame Aaron's death on the vaccine or just questioned if it could be connected. Exact language "Hank Aaron’s tragic death is part of a wave of suspicious deaths among elderly closely following administration of COVID vaccines." Being banned for saying anything the least bit questionable about the vaccines in February 2021 would get anyone removed off most of that era's social media. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
That's a pretty obvious dogwhistle (just suggesting... just asking questions... gosh, it's awfully suspicious) which the BBC straightforwardly described as linking Aaron's death to the vaccine. The Agence France-Presse fact-checkers use linking as well, and also mention RFK saying that the flu shot is more deadly than COVID [1]. NPR mentions the Aaron incident alongside his having shared baseless conspiracy theories linking 5G cellular networks to the coronavirus [2]. All in all, it's an evident instance of "just asking questions" conspiracy-mongering that reputable secondary sources saw right through, and it is only one example they give of claims that have grown no more plausible over time. XOR'easter (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Just one more and I'll move on. Of course he was just asking the question, Kennedy had no way of knowing if Hank Aaron died from the vaccine and wouldn't have claimed that he did. He was questioning. I assume Kennedy was aware of the daily current stats and saw a pattern in them that he questioned, and Aaron fell into that subset. It's a leap to go from that to directly implying 'Kennedy was making a direct accusation with certainty', which is where it stands on the page now. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I see that my rearrangement has been reverted, so now the vaccine stuff is buried again. Being in the first sentence does not mean "more noticeable". In this instance, my version made it more noticeable. Now it's buried again. That's unfortunate.

It also means we are dealing with the same topic in two different places in the lead, and that's not right. My version collected it in a very noticeable second paragraph. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure which version makes it more noticeable; I tend to think the current version does, but I could well believe that varies among readers. On purely procedural grounds, though, we shouldn't change a feature of the introduction that the RfC is explicitly disputing until the RfC is done. XOR'easter (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I understand your second point, although no rule forbids someone daring to cut to the chase by installing what will be seen by most of the complainers as improvements. That's what we do with AfDs too. When there are many complaints about some particular matter, it's okay to move the article closer to a consensus version that will be accepted.
Note that my rearrangement did not change the wording under discussion. It just moved it to a more noticeable place. Now it's buried again.
My version also fixed another matter that was not under discussion, and that can still be fixed while the RfC is ongoing. We currently use the first sentence and last paragraph on the same topics. That's totally wrong. I collected it all in the second sentence, right where it was noticeable. Right now the vaccine stuff is buried in the first sentence where it will only be noticed by those who read the whole sentence. Then it is also covered in more depth in the last paragraph. That's not right.
In case you're in doubt about my pro-vaccine creds (I'm a mainstream PA and PT), I believe that content should be very prominent, more so than now. (My version did that.) Definitely not in the last paragraph as anti-vax editors would like. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)
The placement of the content in question in the first sentence has indeed been part of what the RfC has been disputing. Multiple !voters said explicitly that it belongs there; even if a different placement would be more prominent, we can't rush ahead and make that change. Assuming that the RfC will be closed soon (it's been a month as of today), that will become a moot point, of course. As to the matter of repetition within the intro, I can see how it might be suboptimal, but I'm not convinced it's either horribly wrong or terribly unusual. For example, the lede of Albert Einstein mentions relativity in the second sentence, then goes into more detail in the next paragraph. XOR'easter (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, assuming we follow the example at Albert Einstein, we could just move the last paragraph up so it's the second paragraph. That's exactly what you describe, and it's not part of the RfC. So go ahead and do that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Now that the RfC is closed, I have gone ahead and moved the anti-vaccine last paragraph up so it's the second paragraph, per the Einstein example above. Now the anti-vax mentions are at least closer to each other.

It actually makes more sense to treat this all in one place, as in one paragraph, but for some reason, some people want to keep the first mention in the first paragraph, even if that means it's buried and less noticeable. (The first paragraph should not be a lead for the whole lead.) I prefer moving the mention in the first sentence to the beginning of the now-second paragraph. What do you think? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned the other day, I don't find the first mention to be "buried" when it's placed in the first sentence. (I did some flipping back and forth between browser tabs to check my impressions of both options.) That may come down to a matter of taste, what kind of device the article is being read on, etc. I think that opening with what is basically a lede-for-the-lede is not uncommon and not necessarily bad. Consider the opening line and first paragraph of the FA's John Adams or Harry S. Truman, for example. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

RFC on use of terms in first sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This RfC was started to address the first paragraph of this article. In the interests of full transparency, at that time on 02:17 17 June (UTC), the first paragraph read as follows (without citations):
Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, politician, and writer who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories.

Over the course of the RfC, this paragraph was edited to the following, at the time of closure on 20 July at 15:20 UTC:

Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer and author who is known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines, and public health–related conspiracy theories. He is a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination in the 2024 presidential election.

The main discussion revolved around whether the terms used to describe the article subject's health-related positions, especially "propaganda" but also "conspiracy theories", met the WP:NPOV policy, were correctly weighted in the article according to their use in reliable sources, or otherwise violated the overarching WP:BLP policy. "Debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines" was not discussed, and will not be addressed in this close; see [3]. There were four main "solution themes" proposed:

  1. Keep both "anti-vaccine propaganda" and "health–related conspiracy theories" without change;
  2. Keep the general content under discussion, but alter the terminology, especially "propaganda", to a less pejorative word;
  3. Keep the general content under discussion, but delay it to avoid the lead becoming unbalanced;
  4. Remove both "anti-vaccine propaganda" and "health–related conspiracy theories".
This close finds that there is consensus against solution four (removing both of the terms). Editors have presented reliable sources which address the subject's health-related positions as a major part of his notability.
There is consensus in favour of solution 2 (removing the term "propaganda"), on grounds that it pejoratively implies deliberate deception. (Consensus in favour of this solution renders discussion for and against the first solution moot, as it cannot be implemented)
There was, incidentally, a clear consensus in this discussion that "propaganda" is a more contentious term than "conspiracy theory".
This close finds no consensus with regards to solution three (delaying the content under discussion)—viable arguments were raised against the information being delayed later than the end of the first paragraph. Ending the first sentence after "writer" remains a very viable option.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

^ The addition of "debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines" was added by first Valjean on 15 July and then, when reverted, Silver seren on 17 July. This appears to have followed a discussion below, in which the latter expressed a wish to add it to "the appropriate section". It was appended it to the first paragraph of the lead while a very relevant RfC was ongoing, without discussion. Silver seren had already !voted in the RfC; Valjean would do so afterwards with a WP:NOTFORUM-violating comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

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)
    If you want to use the term "obnoxious," that is certainly an apt description for your incivility, personal attacks, and clear contempt for those who disagree with you. I will be sure to refer the matter to ANI if you continue to show a total lack of regard for basic courtesy here. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 17:42, 19 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."[4] 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)
    So, my first thought exactly echoed yours. But then as I was writing it up, I realized ... how does that critique not also apply to "conspiracy theories"? "Conspiracy theory" is a pejorative term, no? Prosecutors allege a criminal conspiracy in cases all the time, but even in that kind of circumstance we probably wouldn't have a sentence that said "The state argued a conspiracy theory", given the negative implications. (In light of this, I'm leaning towards keep both.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:51, 19 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)
  • @Recobben: could you please self-revert your change to the first sentence? It's under active discussion in this RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Summary of discussion thus far: In the interest of arriving at some type of consensus rather than continuing to repeat the same back-and-forth ad infinitum, I just read through the discussions and polling below. Overall, I counted 17 votes for keeping the status quo and 19 votes advocating some sort of change, ranging from modest to substantial. I think it's fair to say that only a modest change is likely to achieve consensus. With that in mind, it seems that there is an overall consensus for keeping the term conspiracy theory but changing or removing the term propaganda. Some have suggested using the term misinformation instead. Would anyone like to comment on that possibility?
A second area of concern that has been frequently raised is tone: specifically the use of wikivoice. It's less clear what should be done about this, as there are very strong opinions on both sides that seem unlikely to budge. Some suggestions I've seen are to move the pejoratives out of the first sentence, and/or to state the pejoratives outside of wikivoice, e.g. "Kennedy's views of vaccines and public health have been widely described as conspiracy theories and misinformation." What do folks here think of these two possibilities? Are there any other suggestions for how concerns about tone could be addressed? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The first part of your summary seems like vote counting without analysis of the strength of arguments. CT55555(talk) 14:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I did try to summarize key arguments in the second half. However, I am not perfect. Feel free to expand on my summary. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:46, 29 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. SilverserenC 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. SilverserenC 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) (Indefinitely blocked user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 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) (Indefinitely blocked user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC))

*:::I think he's better known for this[5]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 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."[6] 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) (Indefinitely blocked user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC))

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)
If you wish to challenge the reliability of these sources, you open discussion about these news sources. Until then, they are considered reliable sources here. Cortador (talk) 13:15, 16 July 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)
That's not ''The Guardian'', its their breaking news editor in an analysis which incidentally is not considered rs per Wikipedia:NEWSORG. Their actual news reporting follows neutral tone which is what this article should do.
I don't know why CT55555 brought up anti-vaxxer. It's not in the article, not part of the RfC and I did not mention it. TFD (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
His anti-vaccine endeavours absolutely are in the article. Here's just a little bit from the lead:
"Since 2005, he has promoted the scientifically discredited link between vaccines and autism, and is founder and chairman of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Kennedy has emerged as a leading proponent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in the United States"
I brought it up because a significant amount of the misinformation, conspiracy theory, propaganda etc that he shares is about anti-vaxx stuff. It's completely germane to the discussion. CT55555(talk) 23:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear. You wrote, "I have literally shared a list of reliable sources that describe him as an anti-vaxxer." [01:16, 18 June 2023] However we do not use the term "anti-vaxxer" in the article. I have repeatedly said that the article should reflect the facts about him in reliable sources. My objection is when the article uses emotive, value-laden and pejorative language. Your example shows that the facts can be presented without using unencyclopedic language. TFD (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand. Are you concerned that I used the "anti-vaxx" as an abbreviation of "anti-vaccine"? I think it's a fairly standard short hand. I'm really trying not to dominate the conversation here, bludgeon, so if this triviality is the point where we disagree, please drop it. CT55555(talk) 23:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, the article should avoid unencyclopedic terms and words. The choice of words and terms is not a triviality, it's the subject of the RfC. The title of the RfC is "RFC on use of terms in first sentence." TFD (talk) 02:25, 29 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? SilverserenC 19:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
    Obviously. I mean, the point of an encyclopedia is to be kind to politicians, right? </sarcasm> XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 26 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 Keep conspiracy theories, change "propaganda" to more specific "misinformation" or "disinformation" - 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) - I now agree that the term "propaganda" can have too broad a meaning - good "war propaganda" to support the war, "propaganda" demonizing the enemy. - and the sources seem to interchangeably use many words to describe his activities. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:11, 20 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)
  • Remove both from first sentence, I don't agree that the conspiracy beliefs are what he is best known for, and likely not what he will be known for in the future. Neither topic looks to be central to his campaign in office anyways.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep content, broadly speaking - But rewording it may be merited. Sources seem to agree that his anti-vaccine message is a key part of what makes him notable, and so it is merited to be in the first sentence. The specific phrasing could be modified to ensure it matches more closely what WP:RS say, but the general gist is definitely supported by said reliable sources. His anti-vaccine views at the very least must be mentioned in the lead, even if the specific wording of "conspiracy theory" or "propaganda" is not. Fieari (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep conspiracy theory; narrow remove propaganda. This was a surprisingly tough one for me. On the one hand, yes, Wikipedia has its own rule about tone. But I actually think that's met here: there seems to be a minority of voices suggesting that pejorative descriptions are never appropriate, but we have plenty of articles that use the term conspiracy theory in the title, let alone the first sentence: see, e.g., Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death, World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories.
    That said, I do think there's a WP:NPOV (specifically, WP:DUE/WP:WIKIVOICE) aspect to this, although my interpretation may be unique. I think that the descriptions of Kennedy's actions do fit WP:V and WP:RS—I'm not contesting their accuracy. But, when using pejorative language, I think we have to be sure that our tone doesn't reflects the vernacular used by only a distinct minority of reliable sources, even if the majority of sources do not factually contradict that vernacular. In other words, I don't think Wikipedia should, in its own voice, have a tone more extreme tone than the majority of reliable sources. Several reliable sources note Kennedy's affinity for or promotion of conspiracy theories: New Yorker New York Times (NYT again), The Guardian, NBC News, The Hill, Forbes, etc. As such, I don't think the use of the term here imparts an extremity of tone only reflected by a distinct minority of publications. On the other hand, very few use the term propaganda, particularly without attribution. I couldn't find the term used in any of the aforementioned publications, except in this Guardian article, which attributes to a third party. As such, I support the inclusion of conspiracy theory (even if in the first sentence) and support the removal of propaganda.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    Just to point out that the Gdn source - the first you cite - is speaking of him endorsing 'conspiracy theories' relating to CIA involvement in his father's and uncle's killings. Our text specifically talks of him promoting "health-related conspiracy theories". The Gdn simply calles him a "vaccine sceptic" on the health issue. So, much milder than WP. Pincrete (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
    I think you're understating the Guardian a bit. The Guardian opens by calling him a "conspiracy theorist and vaccine skeptic," and, later, when it says, The site also detailed Kennedy’s transformation from environmental campaigner to vaccine skeptic and conspiracy theorist ..., the phrase "conspiracy theorist" is linked to this article: "Instagram and Facebook suspend Robert Kennedy Jr’s anti-vaccine group"--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep content he says that 5G is used by Zuckerberg and Bezos to control you. Also that WiFi causes cancer, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, Fauci killed people with AZT, glyphosate is "strongly linked" to celiacs, he hasn't stopped saying vaccines cause autism, though he's completely changed his explanations for how that might be occurring. These aren't a few quirky views that he holds, this isn't just asking questions or skepticism, these are central to his world view.DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Reword slightly. The language is a bit un-encyclopedic in tone. "Has been criticised for xyz" would be better. Also worth noting that he is described in a range of ways in RSes and the current language is right at one end of the scale. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Ser! expresses the point better than me. He's clearly a conspiracy theorist and that's the main reason he's known, but the wording just sounds a bit odd. Even a subtle change like "who is known for promoting anti-vaccine and health related conspiracy theories" would solve this issue IMO. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
    PieLover3141592654, that's not a bad suggestion. I have implemented it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep content - as long as he's depicted that way prominently in reliable sources, then it's WP:DUE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.126.169.174 (talk • contribs)
That's not what WP:DUE means at all. Miner Editor (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep content based on reliable sources. I may potentially be persuaded that there is a better term than "propaganda" here but I believe that the term "conspiracy" unequivocally fits. I err to the side of keep because of a lot of conspiratorial comments trying to attack the reliability of scientific experts and mainstream media sources and I cannot fathom how we would build an encyclopedia without them. Jorahm (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
    I would also like to add that "misinformation" may be a better term than "propaganda" but still oppose any effort to undermine reliable sources by removing reliable information. Jorahm (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep content or reword slightly. As more and more sources cover Kennedy, it's exceedingly common to see his conspiracy theory and anti-vaccine activity as part of his introduction. I'm not picky about "misinformation" vs. "propaganda". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep content He's been doing this for almost two decades now. Shying away from saying so would amount to a wilful denial of the facts. XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
    The New York Times now says Mr. Kennedy has made his political career on false conspiracy theories about not just Covid-19 and Covid vaccines but disproved links between common childhood vaccines and autism, 5G and other things [7]. XOR'easter (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove propaganda, and move conspiracy theory out of the first sentence, per Adoring nanny and Jtbobwaysf. Using the word propaganda in this way fails WP:NPOV, because it's just away to pejoratively frame advocacy the speaker disapproves of. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
    User:GretLomborg, you are emulating the views of fringe editors, one now indefinitely blocked, and the other on the brink. Bend your mind toward RS, not content toward your own ideas of "neutral". Your whole comment is a poster example of fringe POV pushing. Those editors are not good examples. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Valjean I will remind you about the policies Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. There's literally nothing in my comment that could properly be considered "fringe POV pushing." I only expressed an opinion that the first sentence of the Wikipedia BLPs should follow WP:NPOV and not be stridently condemnatory. Do you really think it's somehow a pro-fringe view to suggest moving "conspiracy theory" out of the first sentence into, say, the second? I think your reply to me was inappropriate and should be struck. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove any heavily slanted or personal opinion-based language and present Robert's views in as matter of fact manner as possible, both here and in the Wikipedia page for his campaign, and do not only include his more questionable sensational views, include the ones that are pro-democracy, anti-oligarchy, and economically leftist as well. David A (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
    None of the language currently in the article intro is "heavily slanted" or "personal opinion-based". All of it presents his views in a manner that is quite matter-of-fact. XOR'easter (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep "conspiracy theories", change "propaganda" to "misinformation", there's four sources just in the lead about the two statements, and there's most likely more in the rest of the article. I don't see why it would be removed, as it's backed by reliable sources - so there's no WP:BLP/WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE issues. That said, "propaganda" is pretty vague, and should be adjusted to "misinformation". LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 10:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove propaganda and move conspiracy theory out of the first sentence this is clearly not in wikivoice. it presents as WP:NPOV when pejoratives are used in the very first sentence Anon0098 (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove It violates BLP and NPOV. ~ HAL333 17:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep it is well sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Neutrally stating what is reported in reliable sources. This is all reliably sourced, maybe propaganda should be misinformation but that's a minor change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, there is nothing in policy that says we can't use labels in BLPs. The important point here is unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep "conspiracy theories", change "propaganda" to "misinformation" per User:LilianaUwU {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep but "misinformation" is a better word here than "propaganda" because it correctly implies that the conspiracy theories are false, whereas the word "propaganda", despite its negative connotation, does not. (It's possible to propagandize for a theory or government or candidate without circulating falsehoods.) NightHeron (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove propaganda, "conspiracy theories" covers it well enough. This content should not be stated in wikivoice and probably not in the first sentence; I favor HappyWanderer15's suggestion. This content is clearly worthy of inclusion but currently does read as a hit-piece.LM2000 (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Move such information to a second sentence at the very least. I am of the mind - and this also applies to articles like The New York Post and Marjorie Taylor Greene - that if you have to create WP:REFCLUTTER, whether bundled or otherwise, in order to justify using contentious labels in the very first sentence of an article (especially given MOS:LEADCITE, though it does concede to WP:BLP), then it would be better to move this information elsewhere and keep the first sentence at least somewhat simpler, letting the rest of the article do the talking. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep as well-sourced and the defining aspects of his public career for the past 10+ years. But basically support changing "propaganda" to "misinformation" or similar per LilianaUwU due to vagueness and not being the exact right word. Skynxnex (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep as incredibly well sourced and a defining characteristic of his campaign and activism. Keep the material, change the phrasing. It's undeniable that RFK has spread anti-vaccine material and that it's become a defining part of the reason he is as well known as he is, as well as his spreading of conspiracy theories, but I share the concerns of some users above regarding the phrasing. Not in the "Oh No! Wikipedia Has Fallen To The Woke Liberal Brain Virus And Lost All Credibility" kind of way, but in the fact that the sentence "RFK is an X Y Z etc etc, who has spread propaganda" does not look good. Much like we don't say "George Santos is a politician who has lied about a number of statements he has made", in spite of the fact that he has, and that it's about as much a part of his reason for notability as the anti-vaccine conspiracy theorism is for this guy. If you want to define him as an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist (which sources back up that he is), go for it. Something along the lines of Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer, politician, writer, anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist would be better than the current phrasing. As a second option, splitting the sentence in two per LVMH11's suggestion would be good, but the current opening sentence doesn't look good at all imv. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    I see your point that anti-vaccine propagandist and health-related conspiracy theorist could be better than the current somewhat weaselly "who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories." -- M.boli (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove Both Coming out of retirement to share my opinion on this... Including these terms in the first sentence(!) violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. While properly sourced and possibly accurate, they are not the most important facts about this notable person. Explaining his detailed positions (and apparently hot takes from some media outlets on his positions... which he has refuted directy) in the appropriate sections of the article is fine. However, in the lead sentence? That's ridiculous. Wikipedia is not the place for political agendas of editors. Obviously more notable facts than his nuanced position on vaccines that make more sense in the first sentence of this BLP: (1) he's running for president in 2024, (2) he's the son of RFK and nephew of the former president JFK, (3) he's married to a famous actress. These are easily more notable than comments he's made on vaccines. Editors who insist on including them in the first sentence of the article are making their biases crystal clear. --SkotyWATC 22:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
    RFK Jr.'s book "The Real Anthony Fauci" was, of course all about the famous actress. That is the hundred pages about how HIV doesn't cause AIDS. And his movie explaining that Covid vaccines are a conspiracy to kill Black people is chock-full of his pre-teen insights about his famous uncle. Probably the lawsuits about 5G, smart meters, and Hunter Biden's laptop are deeply illuminating to historians studying his late father. That's why the reliable sources routinely identify RFK Jr. as husband of famous actress and nephew of famous uncle and don't bother with the disinformation, conspiracy theories, and anti-vax activism. (Sarcasm) The above has to be the least serious response to the question on the table written so far. -- M.boli (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
    So far. The night is young.... XOR'easter (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
    Tell me you don't understand what an encyclopedia is without telling me you don't understand. We are not discussing the content of a news article, blog entry, or facebook post here. We are talking about a biographical article in an encyclopedia for a person that is alive. To include two of his more inane positions in the first sentence is equivalent to highlighting "the slap" in the first sentence of Will Smith's article (note: you have to read all the way to the 4th paragraph of that article before it's mentioned). The subject of this article is running for president! That's clearly a way more important fact to list first. His lineage is particularly notable. In his interviews, far more time is dedicated to his ideas/plans around foreign policy, defense spending, and immigration than on these two nit-pick topics. Do they belong somewhere in the article? Definitely! Are they the most important things Wikipedia can share with people about this person? No way! Where do they belong? A section in the article covering them in an even handed manner. Probably a mention somewhere in the introduction, but not in the first sentence or even the first paragraph! --SkotyWATC 17:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    Manufacturing conspiracy theories and anti-vax propaganda are RFK Jr.'s literal occupation, as the chair of Children's Health Defense. Most of the articles in the reliable news sources describing his decision to run for president ID-ed him as an anti-vaxer or conspiracist or spreader of misinformation, usually in the first one or two sentences. An encyclopedia article which does not lead off with this living person's primary claim to notability and primary occupation would be malpractice. -- M.boli (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    He has responded to the claims in these sources (and others repeating the same trope) multiple times in recent interviews. Here's one example:
    "I've never been anti-vaccine. I'm called anti-vaccine because that's a way of marginalizing and discredditing me in the view of the public. I've had all my children vaccinated. I was fully vaccinated and I've never been anti-vaccine. But what I've said is I'm pro-science and pro-safety and we ought to subject vaccines... to rigorous, placebo controlled trials that are mandated for every other medicine. It's the only medicine that's exempt from pre-licensing safety trials..."
    Insisting that the claims in these news sources be repeated in the first sentence of a biographical article on the man violates WP:WEIGHT and is borderline WP:BLPGOSSIP. I don't refute that they are properly sourced and the content belongs somewhere in the article. I'm not sure why it being in the first sentence is a hill you feel you must die on. The current third paragraph of the article does a much better job presenting the points (using many of the same sources) without it being blatantly guilty of WP:BLPGOSSIP. So I stand by my !vote to remove them both from the first sentence. Keep the third paragraph of the intro though. That makes sense. --SkotyWATC 19:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove both, for the sake of what remains of Wikipedia's credibility. The term "propaganda" is loaded with POV, and the term "conspiracy theory", written in earnest, instantly discredits anyone using it. Given the fact that our encyclopedia asserts that it is false that "children can be effectively protected from disease solely by natural immunity", we are already hanging by a slender thread in the eyes of any objective readers still hoping to take this project seriously. Eric talk 02:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no way we can go about writing this BLP without including his views on and work against vaccines as they have been the majority, if not the only thing, that has kept him in the public eye in the past decade or so. Pretty much any recent news article on him will at least mention his anti vaccine stance, even if they do not comment further. And there's no way we can include his views and avoid describing them as conspiracy theories and some form of propaganda/misinformation/disinformation(not sure which term exactly should be used, other commenters have made good arguments on this) when his views are directly contradictory to the overwhelming scientific consensus and are well described as conspiracy theories in RS. Cannolis (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
    I don't disagree with the points you made, but none them imply that this must be included in the first sentence of the article. I agree it should get full treatment with NPOV somewhere in the article, but there's no way his position on vaccines is the most important point about this person. The fact that he's running for president isn't mentioned until the last sentence of the intro. That's a way more basic and relevant fact to present to Wikipedia readers! His lineage (son of RFK), his alma mater (Harvard), his occupation (lawyer) are all more relevant and basic facts to lead with. His position on vaccines is presented much more clearly and closer to an NPOV in literally the (current) third paragraph of the intro. Isn't that enough? Why is it necessary that it be in the first sentence? --SkotyWATC 19:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    He has worked as an anti-vaccine advocate for decades. He's only been running for president, or any public office, within the last few months. WP:NOTNEWS DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
    He also worked as an environmental lawyer for over a decade, yet that didn't make it into the first sentence! These terms in the first sentence are pretty blatant violations of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BLPGOSSIP. --SkotyWATC 13:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    Weight is attributed to a thing not based on how long one did that thing but based on how much the reliable sources write about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer", it's in the first sentence. And like his environmental work, his antivaccine work should be represented in the first sentence. Cannolis (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    I see that RFK Jr.'s notability has shifted from married famous actress (July 1) to graduated from Harvard (July 7). Because he graduated from Harvard we are supposed to yank his primary occupation and primary claim to fame from the lede sentence. No comment. -- M.boli (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    Lol, you got me! I used different examples of basic truths about this person as potential facts to lead with in the article rather than repeating WP:BLPGOSSIP. Guilty as charged. We could also accurately call him an "environmental activist" in the first sentence. I can provide even more facts that are more basic and relevant that attempting to smear this person in the first sentence of their own BLP. Point is, saying this person promoted "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories" in the first sentence violates WP:WEIGHT especially since these same topics are shared again one paragraph later (still in the intro) much more even handedly with WP:NPOV. I'm still confused why having these terms in the first sentence is a hill you're willing to die on. --SkotyWATC 13:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    Around in circles. The lede sentence describes what reliable sources tell us RFK Jr. does. His occupation. The activities he has become primarily notable for. From NPR just this morning:

    Since Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launched his campaign challenging President Biden for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination, he has given hours of interviews to podcasts, magazines and TV networks. He paints a dark, conspiratorial picture of the world, bristling with debunked theories, misleading claims and outright falsehoods.

    — RFK Jr. is building a presidential campaign around conspiracy theories
    You don't like it, take it up with RFK Jr. Over and out. -- M.boli (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    The lede sentence shows up as a blurb on Google search results and on other search engines and platforms that pull from Wikipedia when a query is made. Those with a POV to push want to make sure that it is pushed as widely as possible in this way. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    If that is true, I think that they should reconsider their viewpoints. Say what you want about Kennedy's more paranoid traits, but at least he is a well-intentioned leftist who is genuinely on the side of helping the people at large, whereas Biden and Trump are solidly on the side of the oligarchy. In addition, considering The Economist's polling results, Kennedy would apparently have a much easier time defeating Donald Trump than Joe Biden would, so given a choice between a genuinely well-intentioned and freedom-loving leftist, who happens to be a bit paranoid but wants to help and unite, rather than divide and slander, the working class, and an extremely narcissistic and irresponsible, oafish, sexist, and corrupt egomaniacal divisive demagogue, which would you all consider to be the much lesser evil? In my view, Kennedy does not seem nearly bad enough to deserve all of the character-assassination that he receives here and especially elsewhere. At least he means well and is not in the politics game for the sake of personal bribes or selfish power-tripping. David A (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    Please check out WP:NOTFORUM CT55555(talk) 19:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Change "propaganda" to "misinformation" and remove conspiracy theories - I believe that propaganda is somewhat of an uncommon term to describe health related theories. I believe misinformation is the term more used today. In terms of removing "public health–related conspiracy theories" I believe that is pretty broad and the anti-vaccine information is better for the first sentence. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I would prefer "promoted inaccurate information about vaccines" to "anti-vaccine propaganda". But something about his life-long advocacy against vaccination must be in the lead paragraph. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep content This is what RFK is primarily known for, and it is backed up by plenty of reliable sources. Cortador (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep current wording ("promoting anti-vaccine propaganda,[2][3][4] debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines,[5] and public health–related conspiracy theories.") Each word is backed by RS and is appropriate. That some object to "propaganda" is worrying: "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." That is a fringe attitude that is exactly the opposite of Wikipedia's purpose. We should be using the terms used by mainstream RS. We should emulate them. Editors should bend their minds toward what RS say, not bend content toward their own ideas of "neutral". Neutering what RS say is a violation of NPOV by interposing editorial opinions of what they consider "neutral" into the picture. Especially in the literal war against science and vaccines carried on by people like Kennedy, disinformation and propaganda are their tools. This is not some scientific "disagreement". It's a battle that's been going on since the first vaccine was used. The tactics are devious and deeply dishonest, with online groups praising mothers who refuse to vaccinate their children, and when they get sick, refusing to take their sick children to those "evil MDs" and allowing them to die of things like whooping cough, which can be treated. (I observed this happen in Australia when lurking on an anti-vax Yahoo! group.) Then the mother is treated like a hero and martyr when accused of child abuse. It's sickening. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep content. Not much more I can say that hasn't been said already. I take the side of WP:YESBIAS, and I'm not convinced that there are any problems with the current wording. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:35, 18 July 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[8] the 69-year-old environmental lawyer and vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr
  • ABC[9] 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[10], 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[11] Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a climate-change activist and vaccine skeptic
  • CBS[12]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[13] Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has attracted criticism for his history of sharing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about vaccines.
  • BBC[14] (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[15] 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) (Indefinitely blocked user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 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)
No, it is Wikipedia's policy to describe him as done in Reliable Sources; that means looking at how ALL RS sources describe him, not just the cherry-picked ones. We've got lots of sources in this article. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you point to any policy that says that? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch lists many circumstances where the terminology in sources should not be used and WP:BLPSTYLE (which is policy) sets high standards for the types of words we can use in biographies of living persons. TFD (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

:::That was not a criterion. After finding the NYT source, I stated in advance what I would do for the other six. Furthermore, if you look at the actual quotes above, it should be obvious that I was not cherry picking. For example the NBC one. @Hob Gadling and @Avatar317 please strike the false statement that my criteria were not what I said they were, or provide evidence. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC))

I would submit that those who would insist on the term "propaganda" are the ones cherry picking; it's just that they are cherry picking the sources with the most pejorative possible language. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I do not live in an English-speaking country and I have no idea whether NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, and BBC are the most reliable sources, the most popular sources, or just the sources people with your POV typically get your information from. So, for all I know, this could just be your echo chamber and be effectively cherry-picking for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Those are all mainstream media sources in the US and Britain. BBC And NPR are public broadcasters. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
So? Is it a complete list of mainstream media sources in the US and Britain and public broadcasters? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I prefer sources that know what they are talking about, such as WP:SBM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Whether or not Kennedy's falsehoods are "propaganda" or "conspiracies" is not a biomedical issue, but a political issue. Miner Editor (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Nonsense. When some layperson such as Kennedy makes claims about medicine, medical scientists are competent to recognize them as factual, or as having a tiny bit of merit, or as conspiratorial bullshit. Especially if they are experts on medical pseudoscience, as the SBM people are. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Whether Kennedy's falsehoods are "propaganda" or a "conspiracy" or him just being wrong goes towards Kennedy's motivation. Scientists do not have an inside track on his motivation. Miner Editor (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
That might be true as to propaganda, but I'm not sure it's true as to conspiracy theory. Saying that someone spreads conspiracy theories doesn't imply that the person does so disingenuously. That said, I agree that medical scientists aren't experts as to what constitutes a conspiracy theory.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Come on, it is obvious that he is spreading conspiracy theories. See "Deadly Immunity" [16]: The story of how government health agencies colluded with Big Pharmacy to hide the risks of thimerosal from the public is a chilling case study of institutional arrogance, power and greed. That article is full of coverups of connections that do not exist. And SBM is competent for telling whether a connection exists or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Wait, what? I'm not sure what you're trying to say, and no interpretation I can come up with relates to what I said. My point was that scientific experts, while certainly in a unique position to determine truth/falisty of a claim, aren't in a unique position to call the claim a conspiracy theory. That said, as you can tell from my !vote above, I support including "conspiracy theory" in the first sentence. --Jerome Frank Disciple 17:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I read your sentence That might be true as to propaganda, but I'm not sure it's true as to conspiracy theory as doubting that he actually is a conspiracy theorist. You can't expect me to read your entire opus before responding to that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::I do agree that he is spreading theories that are at best speculative and unproven. However, that is not sufficient reason to put it into the first sentence of the article. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC))

Can you say more about that? Because that does't seem true to me. I could share propaganda and share a conspiracy theory and not know I am doing so, but still do it. I don't think this is a matter of motivation, I think it is a matter of action. CT55555(talk) 17:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The interesting thing about this conversation, to me, is that all that those of use dissenting from the current wording are saying is that we should dispassionately share what the sources say (i.e., minimizing the use of pejoratives, and if they are used, not using them in wikivoice). Your use of the word "bullshit" here, along with your other comments on the talk page, suggest you have strong feelings on this issue, which is fine. That's why MOS and BLP guidelines are there: so that we can tone down those passions when writing encyclopedic content. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for implying that the sources you listed were cherry-picked. What I meant overall is that there are thousands of sources mentioning Kennedy's actions regarding this subject, and we should follow what the majority of them say. As for the ones you listed, I wouldn't be surprised (and could probably find examples) of THE SAME news source alternately calling him a spreader of "misinformation", "disinformation" and "propaganda" all at different times/articles, even by the same author. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
And in today's WaPo article what RFK Jr. does is labeled misinformation. Focusing on the word propaganda misses the point. Add up all the disinformation and misinformation and propaganda and all the time his messages are described as deceptive or just plain wrong. Peddling propaganda is what RFK Jr. does for a living. Huge numbers of reliable sources and academic experts describe him doing it. I might agree that another word would sound less fraught -- I feel it carries baggage of mid-20th century conflicts. But removing from the lede sentence his primary activity in the public would be malpractice. M.boli (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Right. If he becomes president, Paul Offit may have to flee the country because Kennedy said he should be locked up and the key thrown away [17] - I don't know whether the crime was saving thousands of lives by developing vaccines or contradicting Kennedy's fantasies.
"Disinformation" would mean that he does not believe what he says, and there is no evidence for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Propaganda"?

Moved from User talk:Valjean

The RFC clearly states that there is no consensus to remove "propaganda". Yes, some voters favor "misinformation", however, more favor "propaganda".

So why "no"? --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the closer of the RfC is wrong, and maybe I counted wrong, but my impression is that there was a consensus against that word, in favor of some other word. Someone then made that change. (I am one of those who favors keeping the word as many RS use it.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
To me it looks like the closer of the RfC (AirshipJungleman29) said that there is a consensus in favor of altering the terminology, especially "propaganda", to a less pejorative word. Not saying I necessarily agree, but that is how I interpreted their close. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is also my impression, and even though I don't like it, I bow to the consensus. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The key entry question was: "Do we keep these terms (["promoted xyz propaganda and abc conspiracy theories]) or remove in this WP:BLP?'"
Result: There is no consensus to remove those terms. Period.
There is also no consensus to replace "propaganda" with "misinformation".
The majority does not want to alter it ("keep"). Yes, there is some users who would like (and here also not always strictly) replace "propaganda" with "misinformation", but again - this is not the outcome of the RfC. --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. Are the stories that Kennedy and his vehicles pump out true? No, they're not (autism, thiomersal, MMR, COVID etc.). So by definition they're misinformation. One could also call them propaganda (which they are), but that word on its own does not have the obvious impact to the reader of telling them they are untruths. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I got the impression that most editors who commented on it were against using the term propaganda. But it's not just counting votes but weighing arguments. In this case it was that the term "pejoratively implies deliberate deception." TFD (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The consensus of the RfC close was to remove "propaganda" and replace it was a less pejorative word. I chose the word "views" in my initial edit because that seemed the most neutral term. Someone then changed it to "misinformation," which is my view is less pejorative than "propaganda," especially given its literal definition which states that it is not necessarily intentional. While it may be misinterpreted by some readers to mean disinformation, the actual definition of the word fits the case according to the sources. I'm satisfied with this compromise given the low likelihood of reaching any other consensus. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The complaints about "propaganda" or other words being pejorative should be dismissed out of hand. The reliable sources tell us that RFK Jr. manufactures untruths in service of his aims. Manufacturing and disseminating hooey is RFJ Jr.'s primary occupation. It makes little difference whether or not he persuades himself of his own hooey. No NPOV accurate description of will sound rosy. -- M.boli (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
We should avoid ambiguity in writing. If we think readers are likely to assume we are saying RFK Jr is deliberately deceiving people, then we we should use different phrasing. It's more fitting for polemical writing than an encyclopedia.
Incidentally, the way you write shows you are not a supporter. But we're not here to take sides, just to report the facts. TFD (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces I agree with what you say about avoiding ambiguity. Technically speaking, the word "misinformation" does so. However, I do agree that it could be misinterpreted. Is there a better term that you have in mind? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps you could say he promotes views on autism and covid go against scientific consensus. But then you would have to explain that he gets facts wrong and uses arguments that scientists would find illogical,and that a lot of his reasoning process relies on conspiracism.
On the one the hand, the article should not give his views any more credibility than mainstream science does, which would be a false balance. On the other hand, we shouldn't hammer readers on the head, which would violate neutral tone.
So "misinformation" may be the best choice of words. But I am open to other suggestions. TFD (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@M.boli This has already been discussed and the RfC consensus was against your point of view on the word "propaganda." For the most part, your preferred wording has been retained. Time to move on. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
No, this is simply not true.
Everyone can clearly see above that the majority wants to keep it as it was. If there were a majority who wanted to replace "propaganda" with "misinformation" this would be fine. But this ain't the case. Even partly those who suggested to use "misinformation" stated that they are ok with both.
@TFD: What RFK Jr. is doing is spreading "fake news" to the best. --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
As said above, I don't see the problem with "... propaganda and misinformation". It does need to say - and in the lead - that Kennedy's comments are, indeed, misleading and untrue. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
You cannot ignore the results of an RfC because you think it was wrongly decided. You should contact the editor who closed it and discuss with them. TFD (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Agree with @The Four Deuces. You do not have the right to decide the RfC results do not apply just because you don't like them. Stop edit warring. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Out of interest, I looked up bios for politicians with similarly controversial views. James Inhofe was a leading climate change denier, but the lead merely says, buried among other information, that "he was known for his rejection of climate science."
The lead for the former John Birch Society president Larry McDonald merely says he had "one of the most conservative voting records." This is someone Jack Anderson called the worst member of Congress and Pat Buchanan thought was crazy.
It's unfortunate that when controversial people run for office lots of editors rush in.
Compare also RFK Jr.'s article four years ago before Trump approached him to work for the White House.[18] Nothing about vaccines, propaganda or conspiracy theories in the lead. It wasn't as if he was an unknown person. In 2008 he campaigned for Hillary Clinton and later Obama and was a regular guest on cable news. TFD (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
That's because during and since COVID he's done nothing much except his anti-vax and conspiracy theory stuff, which has of course generated the most media coverage. People are best known for different things at different points in their lives. Until the recent presidential run he was -currently - best known for that. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
If the recent anti-vaccine advocacy belongs in the opening paragraph, I don't see why his decades of environmental work with the Waterkeeper Alliance should not also be mentioned. Clearly, pre-Covid, it was considered his primary claim to notability as shown by TFD's link above. Yes, I understand Children's Health Defense has been active since 2005. Even with that being the case, however, the community did not decide that was his primary claim to notability until he gained more attention for it during Covid. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Times, as the saying goes, change. XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
...which is why we need to take WP:RECENTISM into account. I agree that his anti-vaccine activism is one of his primary claims to notability, and something that has gained a lot of attention in recent years. But isn't it unbalanced to move mention of the environmental organization he founded to the bottom of the lede when it once (not so long ago) occupied the first couple of sentences? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
No, it isn't. The environmental organization gets a fairly brief subsection and a few scattered mentions that mostly provide no real information about what role RFK himself played, while the conspiracism has a lengthy section. Artificially inflating the placement of the former gives a misleading impression of the article's contents overall. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
In the examples I provided (McDonald and Inhofe) and in fact for most bios about people who are not running against Joe Biden, the tone is more neutral . TFD (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The tone here neutrally describes what RFK does and has been doing. The Larry McDonald article is in mediocre shaped (tagged for needing better sources since 2017, paltry lead in comparison with the body text, lengthy list that ought to be prosified, etc.), so I wouldn't use it as an example to follow in pretty much any regard. And since the contours of Inhofe's and RFK's respective careers have been rather different overall, I wouldn't expect their leads to be structured in exactly the same way. Inhofe's (ahem) contentious positions were a part of his Senate career, so it makes sense to mention them in the part of the lede that covers Inhofe's time in the Senate. I wouldn't object in principle to including something about all that in the first paragraph, as is done here. (Whenever one argues that Wikipedia article A should be more like B, somebody else will say that B does it right and A should be fixed.) XOR'easter (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't mean to be argumentative, but if you look at people that are universally considered bad, such as Adolph HItler or Charles Manson, the tone is much more neutral. HItler of course was an anti-vaxxer who pushed anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and propaganda, and carried much more serious crimes, but the article is written dispassionately. TFD (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The person who closed the RfC is simply wrong, or used an opaque method of counting what qualifies as a comment supporting the removal of the term "propaganda". I count more than 20 votes in favour of keeping the term, and less than 20 against that. Even then, RfC aren't concluded by majority vote (especially if the vote is close) but by consensus, and the statement that there is "consensus in favour of solution 2 (removing the term "propaganda")" is not true, plain and simple. Cortador (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The examples of dispassionate neutrality named by @The Four Deuces are the lede paragraphs for Hitler and Manson.

  • Hitler is first ID-ed as Austrian-born German politician who was dictator of Germany. In the first paragraph he is notable for starting and prosecuting World War II and perpetrating genocide.
  • Manson is ID-ed as a criminal, cult leader, and musician. The rest of the first paragraph is all about his crimes.

Describing RFK Jr. as disseminating propaganda, conspiracy theories, anti-vaccine misinformation, etc. is the soul of dispassionate NPOV. It is accurate, it is what the reliable sources tell us. It is no more pejorative than saying Hitler was a dictator who perpetrated genocide and Manson was a cult leader guilty of famous murders. People who feel an accurate NPOV dispassionate description of RFK Jr. is pejorative have a beef with RFK Jr., not with Wikipedia. -- M.boli (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

In the current RFK Jr lead, the only term I would contest is propaganda, but earlier versions of the lead had other value laden terms. The crimes committed by HItler and Manson are matters of fact, whereas saying someone disseminated propaganda is being pejorative. TFD (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The term propagandad btw is often seen as pejorative: "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 Nazi Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, and the broken campaign promises of a thousand politicians." (Encyclopedia Britannica) In essence, we are making an ad hominen attack instead of coldly outlining the facts.
Some editors believe that loaded language makes articles more persuasive. In fact, they have the opposite effect on anyone not already committed to their side. TFD (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
So in your view propaganda sounds bad but cult and dictator do not. Thank you for that insight. (Of course it isn't hard to find authorities noting those other words can be used as pejoratives, I was being ironic.) Once again, reliable sources tell use that RFK Jr. traffics in propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, what-have-you. It is accurate and NPOV. Your beef is with reality, not with Wikipedia. -- M.boli (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Words that are normally pejorative may be neutral under certain conditions. Calling Hitler a Nazi is not pejorative, nor is calling the publications of his Ministry of Propaganda propaganda. Hitler was a dictator under the traditional definition, as used by the Romans: he dissolved the legislature during an emergency and ruled by decree. But Wikipedia articles don't label everyone accused of being a dictator of being one, particularly when the legislature continues to operate and elections are held.
See also Cult: "a term, in most contexts pejorative, for a relatively small group which is typically led by a charismatic and self-appointed leader, who excessively controls its members, requiring unwavering devotion to a set of beliefs and practices which are considered deviant (outside the norms of society)." The article on Scientology does not call it a cult, although it says it has been defined that way.
When one says that RFK Jr spreads "propaganda," one is conveying one's judgment of him, which makes the article appeared biased. If one were talking on the Rachel Maddow show, it will go down well, because one would be affirming their world view. But one were talking to a wider audience, most viewers would pick up on one's bias and discount much of the factual information one provides. By coming on too strong, one alienates the audience one wants to persuade. TFD (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

anti-vaccine misinformation

In the lede:

“He is known for advocating anti-vaccine misinformation”

No he does not which should be obvious. He advocates views that most others consider to be misinformation. He presumably considers most others as propagating misinformation. Please clarify that. By “should be obvious,” I mean the sentence reads as if he deliberately propagates positions he knows to be false. He sure sounds like a true believer to me. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that he claims to be "pro vaccine" and also
continually makes references to the fact that all of his children are vaccinated, despite this being before he developed his anti vaccine views, and his refusal to confirm or deny whether he would have his children vaccinated now, suggests that his rhetoric is deliberately deceptive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources tell us RJK Jr. (A) advocates for (B) stuff which which is false. Perhaps the objection is with the word "advocates"? Whether RFK Jr. "believes" his firehose of hooey is not our concern. If the word "advocates" has some implication of belief, I suggest that "promoting" misinformation would address such objection. Because he most assuredly manufactures and markets the stuff. -- M.boli (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
What is wring with: "He promotes views on vaccines that the large majority within the scientific and medical communities hold to be invalid and therefore misinformation."?
True, it adds a tad to the length of the article, but the point is to render Wikipedia what it is supposed to be, an objective encyclopedia untinged by political bias and, in my view at least, without sacrificing the point the present wording seeks to make. It simply allows the reader to come to the same view himself/herself without spelling it out as if the article were an editorial.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Then familiarize yourself with a) Wikipedia practices with respect to fringe theories and b) prior discussions on this talk page (including archives) about the wording of the lede. -- M.boli (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe familiarize yourself with WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP, and WP:BLPGOSSIP. You obviously don't think much of this man and are determined to disparage him in this article. However, despite the references selected, the man himself has directly refuted the claims that he is anti-vax. Here's one example:
"I've never been anti-vaccine. I'm called anti-vaccine because that's a way of marginalizing and discredditing me in the view of the public. I've had all my children vaccinated. I was fully vaccinated and I've never been anti-vaccine. But what I've said is I'm pro-science and pro-safety and we ought to subject vaccines... to rigorous, placebo controlled trials that are mandated for every other medicine. It's the only medicine that's exempt from pre-licensing safety trials..."
The person this article is about has publicly and repeatedly addressed the exact claims being debated here. I would argue that this is a BLP article, and as such, we should err on the side of the subject of the article rather than disparage him in direct conflict to his stated position. --SkotyWATC 03:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
This has been addressed. You will find old refutations in the archives. Wikipedia is not so gullible to take people's word on what they are, especially if they are as untrustworthy as this guy. Practically all anti-vaxxers claim that they aren't. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Has it though? Care to provide links to where this is addressed concretely and not just statements like "but it has references!" or "everyone knows this!" or the like. He has stated that he and his family use vaccines and are vaccinated. He has raised concerns about the lack of safety practices around some vaccines. The press therefore labels him "anti-vaxer" and overzealous Wikipedians point to the sources and copy/paste the label. This is WP:BLPGOSSIP. The man has directly addressed the labeling the media has applied to him. The guidelines in WP:BLP demand better than this nonsense. SkotyWATC 13:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The man has directly addressed the labeling... by roaring ahead full-throttle with his conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine etc. propaganda. Your beef is with reality, no amount of whining on Wikipedia will fix that. -- M.boli (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Who cares what Kennedy himself says? He is not a reliable source, just another guy with a tin foil hat. Dimadick (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
In no way does BLPGOSSIP apply. Kennedy has continued to push discredited anti-vax theories (notably the autism-related ones) well after they have been thoroughly discredited. He still associates with utterly discredited figures such as Wakefield and Mikovitz. And then there's COVID-19; Fauci with a Hitler moustache, Bill Gates, 5G, pretty much every tinfoil-hat theory you can think of, all of which are nonsense. And that's before we even start on the Ashkenazi Jew question, the medical racism issue, vaccines causing nut allergies, or the AIDS denialism. Fauci called him "a disturbed individual" and it's difficult to argue against that. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
"Kennedy has continued to push discredited anti-vax theories" He has built a career out of promoting these particular lies. Abandoning these views would be against his financial interests. Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
To quote the New York Times, Mr. Kennedy has made his political career on false conspiracy theories about not just Covid-19 and Covid vaccines but disproved links between common childhood vaccines and autism, 5G and other things [19]. The fact that he is a conspiracy theorist does not care about anyone's feelings that calling him what he is might be impolite. XOR'easter (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
[20]
He has raised concerns about the lack of safety practices around some vaccines No, he has raised imaginary concerns about alleged lack of safety practices. And it is not just the press, it is the experts who call him that, because they recognize the flimsiness of his reasoning. See [21] for details. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
"No, he has raised imaginary concerns" Kennedy is exploiting people's fears to get money and fame. Just like anyone else who tries to profit from moral panics. They may regularly destroy lives, but they do not care. Dimadick (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
At this point, I believe that we have a lede that is satisfactory and reflects consensus. It was a long haul to get here. Would I word it slightly differently if it were up to me, particularly with regard to the use of wikivoice? Sure. Still, I would advise those who are pushing for more changes to understand how Wikipedia works. It is very unlikely that any further changes can be made that would have any chance at gaining consensus. Frankly, the current attempts to do so would be in danger skewing the POV in the subject's favour. I think we should leave it as it is. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
We don't have consensus for the latest change (propaganda -> misinformation) either, so why keep that one then? Cortador (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
There is no political bias in regards to vaccinations, fringe conspiracy theories do not get equal weight to reality. Zaathras (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
the biggest problem is accepting that people can even slap this label of being an "Anti Vaxxer" so loosely. TO be an anti vaxxer, one would never take a vaccine. Or take another if they had in the past. To be against a specific vaccine due to lack of information or trust in the entities pushing it, does not qualify as being ANTI Vaxxer. 65.51.138.162 (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

First paragraph -- Sentence and citations don't go together.

The sentence states, "known for advocating anti-vaccine misinformation and public health-related conspiracy theories." but after looking through all of the cited evidence/sources, there are no polls, or other data, that indicate how RFK Jr is "known". I can't edit the article. Could an admin or experienced editor make the necessary changes to that sentence? Cmsmith93 (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Four prominent sources discuss Junior's antivaxxer activities, the personal consequences for him (e.g. social media bans), and the damaging effects they have had upon society. That is what it means to be "known for". Zaathras (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't see the sense in redefining "known for" that way, "a discussion of someone's activities, the consequences of those activities, and damaging affects upon society.", but what term do you use to describe how society knows someone if we did change the definition? Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
No one is redefining anything. It is simple English. Zaathras (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
You just proposed we do that. I quoted your definition above and here is the, different, definition that everyone else uses;
"generally recognized" - Merriam Webster
"To be aware or cognizant of" - Oxford English
I'm here to engage with anyone who engages me, and I really do appreciate you engaging with me, but I can't respond again if you keep talking about changing this definition. It's off topic and I don't see the value. Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
No one changed a definition, you have no idea what you're talking about. Zaathras (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it would be better to avoid "known for". I'd go for:
  • who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health-related conspiracy theories
  • who advocates anti-vaccine misinformation and public health-related conspiracy theories
  • who spreads anti-vaccine misinformation and public health-related conspiracy theories
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Your suggestions don't really alter the meaning of the assertion, so if you want to say "he is doing the things" instead of "people know he is doing the things", be my guest. The passage will still be noting what "the things" are, which is the important part. Zaathras (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Manipulation of information

Moderation clearly failed and this article is clearly meant to be a narrative. The banter in 'Edit History' is something to behold and best represents the manipulation by the mods. Especially the the heavy implications of the allegations being the accuser being the actual abuser of information. The general defense of allegations is tied to conjecture passed of as earned altruism. Clearly the use of moderation is used for abuse when it's used as an entitlement instead of it's use as a herald of objectivity. The proof of this is clearly stated but said. Just look at the graph, the obvious increases of traffic, the type of edits, purpose of edits and so on. Now look at who is wiki community users and then casual users. Biased responses will always be a thing, the lack of integrity is the real issue. L'appesl i du vide 22:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerotone (talk • contribs)

This is so vague to be totally useless. If you want changes, you need to be clear on what you want to change into what. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Moderation definitely failed this wiki page. Bias is evident. RFK Jr is NOT an anti vaxxer. 65.51.138.162 (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with moderation, and yes, he is. Reliable sources say so, and it is also obvious, since he spreads untrue rumors that ascribe detrimental properties to vaccines which they do not have. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
He is an Anti-Vax Advocate but i generally disagree with putting and phrasing it as “misinformation and disinformation” instead it should just be “propaganda” so the whole article doesn’t seem totally biased - - @Hob Gadling 52Timer (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
We will not whitewash the article by removing that information just because you do not know enough about the subject to recognize that his statements about vaccines are simply not true. We will keep following what the reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Current law firm status

The article says incorrectly that Mr. Kennedy is a partner in the firm Morgan and Morgan. He is not. He is "of counsel" to that firm, a vastly different role. See Morgan and Morgan's web site for more clarification: https://www.forthepeople.com/attorneys/robert-f-kennedy-jr/ Gmeltzer (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Indeed the existing citation for the "partner" statement correctly said "of counsel." This relationship is described elsewhere in this article. -- M.boli (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Guardian article about Democratic -> Independent

Here. Also contains a lot of his conspiracy theories, including a link to the 9/11 semi-denial stuff. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done AFAIK JFK Jr is still a candidate for the Democratic primaries, this article correct. The report that he intends to change to independent was added to the Wikipedia campaign article. The campaign is only minimally covered here. When (and if) he changes parties the Wikipedia articles will be updated to reflect that. -- M.boli (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

What are the sources for the term "disproven"?

Resolved. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This term seems to have appeared only once in the entire article, and curiously, it is in the lead. As per my previous reasoning, in statistical inference and scientific research more broadly, there is a typical setup where a "causal link" may be plausible based on the rejection of a test, but not "disproven" based on the non-rejection of the same test. Those who repeatedly reverted my edit should list any WP:RSes that specifically says "disproven". Remember, this is WP:BLP. Normchou 💬 01:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:MEDRS/FAQ and WP:FRINGE We follow the consensus of relevant experts, yes even in WP:BLP.[1][2][3][4][5]DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
So maybe Seth Mnookin is an expert on the relationship between vaccines and autism (??), but why didn't he mention the research in the article? I see broken links to CDC data on whooping cough, but I don't see any research on autism cited. Cmsmith93 (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I gave you five citations. Are you referring to those? Don't "Just Asking Questions" please make statements. Ideally those statements will be about the topic of this thread. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Although according to epistemology, synthetic a posteriori statements cannot be proved, we assume they can. Otherwise, we would have to qualify every article, for example by saying that it has not been disproved that the earth is flat. TFD (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The point on epistemology and the "flat earth" analogy are tangential. While there is overwhelming evidence supporting certain scientific assertions, effectively rendering them pragmatically "proven", a lack of evidence does not equate to "disproven." Instead, it underscores the need for further investigation rather than a confirmation of the opposite. This aligns with basic scientific methodology and decision-making under uncertainty. Normchou 💬 07:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
In other words, it's important to distinguish between the absence of evidence and evidence of absence. I had assumed that Wikipedians were well-versed in this methodology and discourse. Normchou 💬 07:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
a lack of evidence does not equate This is not about a fucking "lack of evidence", and it never was. Stop misrepresenting. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Technically, it is not possible to prove a negative (in this case, that means that any measurement of the hypothetical effect the MMR vaccine has on autism will never get any closer to being zero than "zero plus/minus epsilon" for mathematical reasons). But given that the only evidence for it that has ever existed was a tiny study with 12 data points, all of which were cherry-picked and most of which were additionally faked, by a guy who had three different undisclosed conflicts of interest, and based on a combination of two implausible hypotheses both coming from thin air, while the evidence against it is an overwhelming number of studies with huge numbers of participants and no known weaknesses, it seems churlish to try to nitpick away the "disproven". Wakefield's claims can hardly get more disproven than that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Just noticed that this thread is about replacing "disproven" by "unproven". That is totally unacceptable. "Unproven" would be the correct word only if there were a plausible mechanism but no evidence yet either way. In this case, neither of those preconditions is true. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Typical attempt of white-washing, implying that "unproven" solely means that in the future it will be definetly proven.
No, various results say "no", and the philosophical (epistemological) terminus does not apply here. --Julius Senegal (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Your understanding of the issue is wrong, and this (Typical attempt of white-washing) borders on casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I made no claim that "unproven hypotheses will definitely be proven in the future." Instead, I am merely saying that there's a distinction between "we haven't found evidence for this yet" and "we have evidence that this is not true.", and the term "disproven" is unsuitable in the first scenario. Normchou 💬 07:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I suppose we could use "false" or "fraudulent" instead of "disproven". But we are certainly not using "unproven", with its insinuation that there is possibly a link there, just one that hasn't been discovered yet. On that basis we could use the word to cover any postulated cause for autism, however fantastical or ridiculous. I also have to say that I am quite tempted to block you from editing the article because of this ridiculous edit. You need consensus for controversial edits - there is clearly none, and neither will there be. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
We can end that, as per Black Kite. Too many Kennedy fans out there. --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
It is absolutely fine to be a Kennedy supporter and edit the article, as long as you are editing it dispassionately. This is a separate issue, however, which involves core issues of reliable sourcing and fringe science. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
According to logic, a self contradiction implies infinite conclusions. "All dogs are not dogs therefore RFKJR is made of cheese" is a logically valid argument. LOL. Thank god we don't use a priori reasoning in determining content. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I did find it rather odd that the research that did the disproving was not cited. We have the scientific american article where the author mentions autism, but, hell I could've missed it, I don't see the relevant research quoted or cited or mentioned at all. Cmsmith93 (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The research does not mention Kennedy, so we cannot cite it here. That would be WP:SYNTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I find it rather odd, that even a whole article is not enough for you. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, it's irrelevant to Kennedy, save for the fact that he chooses to believe a fraud that got a British medical doctor struck off as a physician. Many other people did (and still do) believe it, but there is still a requirement when discussing it to point out the facts about it, otherwise Wikipedia runs the risk of suggesting that it may be valid. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, this nonsense has taken up far too many bytes now, and should be closed. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Taylor LE, Swerdfeger AL, Eslick GD (June 2014). "Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies". Vaccine. 32 (29): 3623–9. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.085. PMID 24814559.
  2. ^ Bonhoeffer J, Heininger U (June 2007). "Adverse events following immunization: perception and evidence" (PDF). Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases. 20 (3): 237–46. doi:10.1097/QCO.0b013e32811ebfb0. PMID 17471032. S2CID 40669829.
  3. ^ Boseley S (February 2, 2010). "Lancet retracts 'utterly false' MMR paper". The Guardian. Retrieved February 2, 2010.
  4. ^ "Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism Concerns". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2018-12-12. Retrieved 2019-02-07.
  5. ^ Gerber JS, Offit PA (February 2009). "Vaccines and autism: a tale of shifting hypotheses". Clinical Infectious Diseases. 48 (4): 456–61. doi:10.1086/596476. PMC 2908388. PMID 19128068.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion for the opening sentence/paragraph.

This isn't leading anywhere. Closing before the OP runs out of good will. Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So can we still suggest edits for the opening paragraph or does the RfC kind of 'shutdown' that discussion? I did see some folks were still making edits so I think I'm ok? Let me know if I'm doing something naughty. Anyways, I'm struggling a bit to make the paragraph with the citations look right so I'm going to separate them for now and put the main suggestion first without citations, then the why for my suggestion, and then all of the citations I recommend...

Suggestion:

"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known as RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer and writer. He is running for president of the United States in the 2024 presidential election as an independent."

Why do I think this is an improvement?:

There are sections highlighting the anti-vaccine, conspiracy theory, and Children's Health Defense information already in the article. I think my suggestion makes things more neutral and succinct.

Citations/sources:

Kennedy Jr., Robert F. (2018). American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family. Harper. ISBN 978-0060848347.

Kennedy Jr., Robert F. (2021). The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1510766808.

Kennedy Jr., Robert F. (2023). Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak. Children's Health Defense. ISBN 978-1510766969.

Renshaw, Jarrett (October 9, 2023). "RFK Jr. declares independent 2024 presidential run, raises millions more". Reuters. Robert F. Kennedy Jr, an environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist and son of the former senator, announced on Monday in Philadelphia that he is dropping his Democratic Party bid for president and will run as an independent. Cmsmith93 (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you guys think? M.boli Firefangledfeathers Cmsmith93 (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
No. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Ditto. Definite no from me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Why not? Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is @Cmsmith93's 4th attempt since June to remove from the lede RFK Jr.'s professional occupation promulgating anti-vax misinformation and conspiracy theories. -- M.boli (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

M.boli Do you have evidence that that's his profession? Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
RFK Jr. is chair of Children's Health Defense since 2015. That's his day job, so to speak. He manufactures and spreads vaccine misinformation and health-realated conspiracy theories. He represents the group and their anti-vax views in public. His name is on the CHD law suits and the anti-vax movie and many of their activities. -- M.boli (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
You're just regurgitating the first sentence. Do you have links to video or audio of him saying something like, "People shouldn't get vaccinated."? Haha this is what I've been asking for for months... You know this... Cmsmith93 (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
That is not how sourcing works in Wikipedia. Please read WP:PRIMARY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
You're just regurgitating the first sentence. All those aspects of Kennedy's current career are in these very articles and well-documented. You asked a specific question, I gave a specific answer. But instead of engaging with the material you bleat the same nonsense. You hardly have standing to accuse others of regurgitating. Over and out. -- M.boli (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Smith, any editing suggestion that omits the subject's prominent antivaxx and conspiracy theorizing from the opening is dead on arrival. Stop wasting your time, and ours, please. Zaathras (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going to have one last chat/attempt with M.boli and Firefangledfeathers here. Then I'll move onto the rest of the article. My initial post about it months back highlights how the evidence was too weak so obviously I don't see this -- "subject's prominent antivaxx and conspiracy theorizing". I'm certainly open to better evidence if you guys have any. And obviously stronger evidence should be put in as supporting evidence for those claims. Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
The "evidence" is already in the article. Citations. Zaathras (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I didn't say there are no sources, or evidence. I said the evidence is weak. Cmsmith93 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to join those in the No corner, simply because I'm not following your logic here. Surely "there are sections in the article highlighting his advocacy for anti-vaccination theories" is more of a reason to include it in the first sentence than it is to exclude? It's received a great deal of coverage (as we can see in the large section within the article) and is a pretty defining characteristic of his, enough so that it merits inclusion this early. I also note your comment about how there should be stronger evidence; how much stronger does this evidence need to be than the approximately 25-30 sources in the section about his anti-vaccination advocacy and conspiracy theories? If your concern is about the four sources in the first sentence, please note that per WP:LEADCITE we only add citations for stuff that's likely to be challenged; there are far more within the article's body itself that can back this up. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"Surely "there are sections in the article highlighting his advocacy for anti-vaccination theories" is more of a reason to include it in the first sentence than it is to exclude?" I was trying to be consistent with how Ron Paul's page, Donald Trump's page, Barack Obama's page, and Joe Biden's page read. So no, since those other pages don't pick a random piece of information covered somewhere in the article and mention it in the opening sentence or two. They just say the quickest most relevant thing about them, their name, and birthday. So my suggestion here would fall in line with those pages I figure would be similar. Cmsmith93 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no rule that demands that every article needs to follow the same template, and there is no rule that says that article structure needs to be consistent. We follow the existing rules, not the nonexisting ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources: Kennedy himself. Lol. No, and now WP:STICK, this is boring. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AP Article on his antivaxx harm

This Associated Press article is a good collection of examples where his antivaxx influence caused harm to those who believed him. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Eh, it's a pretty weak article actually. "RFK Jr. spent years stoking fear and mistrust of vaccines." evidence? "These people were hurt by his work" hardly. RFK Jr wrote the forward to a book titled Cause Unknown, which highlights recent sudden deaths in young people. "that falsely argues COVID-19 vaccines caused a spike of sudden deaths among healthy young people." evidence? "His death in August 2022 was due to a malformed blood vessel in his brain." evidence? "When the Faheys and residents of their town in California tried to contact the publisher and author to get Braden and his picture taken out of the book, no one responded." evidence? All of that is after reading maybe 20% of the article. Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The Associated Press is a reliable source and they are not obligated to meet your personal standard of evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. Cmsmith93 should first become familiar with Wikipedia rules and standards, then jump into the honeypot, not the other way around. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Generally yeah they're pretty good. I didn't say they were...? My personal standard goes beyond just having a citation. Asking for evidence to support a claim is the lowest bar you can set, otherwise all claims are true. Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
"RFK Jr. spent years stoking fear and mistrust of vaccines" evidence? Excuse me? He's been stoking fear in vaccines since 2005. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. Cmsmith93 should first get good information about Kennedy, then jump into the honeypot, not the other way around. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah it could be true. I just haven't seen strong enough evidence of that (yet?). Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Associated Press is ok. I concur with the others here (except ofc with Cmsmith93). --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
@Cmsmith93: As you search for "evidence" you might want to consider maybe Bill Gates-owned 5G cell phone towers have penetrated your blood-brain barrier and altered your DNA. You don't need to take my word for it, RFK Jr. says that. So it must be true. -- M.boli (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
It might also have given them autism! Brat Forelli (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Do you have a link to him saying that?
How did you go from what I said, "this AP article lacks evidence all over" to "everything RFK Jr says is true"? Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The Associated Press has a verified track record for accuracy and fact-checking. You do not. That is why we accept the AP as a source, rather than your analysis and opinions of their evidence. Zaathras (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Siblings' opinion of Kennedy's presidential candidacy.

If the editors here feel it's appropriate to incorporate, this opinion was expressed by Kerry Kennedy and three other siblings, Joseph, Kathleen, and Rory, on the platform formerly known as Twitter. https://twitter.com/kerrykennedyrfk/status/1711419719683559659?s=46&t=xMkwotbTDKIuOJabQITw9Q Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an editor, but I think there should at least be an "Independent Run" section made for all things related to it. The date, perhaps how well/poor he does in the polls, peoples reactions to it, etc. Wikipedia has Twitter marked as "Generally unreliable" http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources so the admin's/editors might not be quick to implement this. Cmsmith93 (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I doubt they will mention that it’s only a tiny percentage of his family, who are not standing with him for the election, even though several of his siblings are. You have to understand that, Larry, the founder of Wikipedia admits how it’s been taken over by very bad people, he says. FriendswLarrySanger (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
You misspelled "claims", writing "admits" instead. See also Argumentum ad larryem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

New York Times article

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/us/rfk-jr-finances.html How R.F.K. Jr. Has Turned His Public Crusades Into a Private Windfall The causes Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has championed have brought him admiration, criticism — and tens of millions of dollars. By Susanne Craig New York Times Nov. 16, 2023 Nbauman (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you want us to do with this? TFD (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
This is for the benefit of anyone who wants to add it to the article. I don't like editing controversial articles any more, because I can't stand edit wars. Nbauman (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Also notice how this recent article refers to the subject and highlights his accomplishments. Drsruli (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Propose to remove crud from lede

I think some of the clunkiness of the lede can be fixed by eliding some the less-important historical stuff, viz:

Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials as RFK Jr. and the nickname Bobby, is an American environmental lawyer and writer who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories. He is an independent candidate in the 2024 presidential election (before October 9, 2023, he was a Democratic Party candidate). He is chairman of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group.
Kennedy is a son of U.S. attorney general and senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of U.S. president John F. Kennedy and senator Ted Kennedy. After growing up in the Washington, D.C. area and Massachusetts, he graduated from Harvard University and obtained his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Virginia School of Law.

The parts I have struck out above are sludge, for lede purposes. ey in the historical parts of the article. -- M.boli (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization of either of these sentences as crud or sludge, although I agree with removing where he supposedly "grew up" from the lead. I am unaware of any test based in policies or guidelines to determine when content is "crud" or "sludge", other than the personal opinion of an individual Wikipedia editor, which is clearly insufficient in this case. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to move wording into another part of the lead

Cont from above closed discussion, sorry late (and technically, not quite two months yet)


Support, as above. Drsruli (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Starting a proposal for the same thing after the prior proposal was just closed against the change is highly inappropriate. SilverserenC 05:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I apologized. I *just* missed it. I count 3 "yays", 4 "nays" and 3 additional requests objecting to the current wording (not including the previous deliberation commencing in September). Drsruli (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Going nowhere

I was considering adding this, but decided to come to the talk page to establish consensus on this: would it be a good idea to change the opening sentence from, "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer and writer known for advocating anti-vaccine misinformation and public health-related conspiracy theories," to: "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer, writer, and conspiracy theorist"? I personally think, given that Kennedy's persistent promotion of conspiracy theories has led to him being listed as a conspiracy theorist in the categories he belongs to in the article (as well as being described as a conspiracy theorist by multiple sources that support the "known for advocating anti-vaccine misinformation and public health-related conspiracy theories" section), that it should be this way, though I want to propose this here to see what people think before anything happens to the article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Something needa to be done because the current into paragraph is clearly not written from a neutral point of view. The language used includes negative descriptors such as "promoting anti-vaccine misinformation" and "public health–related conspiracy theories." These statements could be seen as biased since they portray Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. in a negative light. Andelocks (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The article follows reliable sources, which predominantly characterize the subject as a fringe antivaxxer. Zaathras (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I echo your words, @Zaathras: further, I would like to ask since you commented here: do you believe that my proposed sentence change in the original comment works? JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it would still be a clearly biased page as a whole but much less so than “known for advocating anti vaccine misinformation and public health related conspiracy theories”. I don’t think I have ever read a wiki article with such defamatory statements for the first sentences. They are also the first result of a search of “RFK jr” on google. That is undoubtedly intentional and why I would agree with your proposed change given no better options. I think though being born to the kennedy family, graduating Harvard, the founding of Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic and non profit Waterkeeper Alliance, and the respective supervision and presidency of such could be some things written into a new proposed senetence if there is no bias held against him. The sentence up now is unfairly written and shown to anyone on the internet who searches RFK jr with the goals of harming him or his political campaign and it is being allowed to stay up because of opinions and hypocritical beliefs about spreading misinformation. Msnhvd (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff, your wording is fine. As for this other guy... bud, that's too bad. This is what RFK Jr. is now predominantly known for, as supported by sources. If you're mad about him being portrayed that way, perhaps you should be more mad about him being that way. Zaathras (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
No, since the intro has changed. --Julius Senegal (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if you've seen my previous posts and comments, but to summarize quickly, I don't think the evidence that he's anti-vax or a conspiracy theorist is strong enough. Given that, I still like your suggestion here and wish I had read it before I made my most recent suggestion below because it's pretty similar. I said the following in that discussion, "I was trying to be consistent with how Ron Paul's page, Donald Trump's page, Barack Obama's page, and Joe Biden's page read." The opening is always a few neutral facts and then the rest of the article covers anything controversial, their accomplishments, etc. But for some reason on this RFK Jr article it needs to read differently? I'm not understanding why, and it's not looking like anyone can explain it either :/ Cmsmith93 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I don’t see this as the case in this recent reliable article , for example : https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/us/rfk-jr-finances.html As we get further from the virus, this aspect diminishes in importance. Drsruli (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
"The virus"? There is more than one type of virus. Kennedy is also a big help to machinations of the measles virus against humanity, for example. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely! I came to this page to read about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the first thing I thought was there is a smear campaign against him on Wikipedia. Right from the first sentence, I can tell that the article is biased. The introduction should be short and very general. This man has had an entire life and the page is defining him by views he expressed in only the last few years. It is a travesty. 165.124.121.185 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I came into the talk section of this article to address this very sentence. It must be conceded that there are people who do not agree with Mr. Kennedy, and have very strong feelings about his ideas and peronsal beliefs. When we say "conspiracy theories" I think it is fair to say that it is inferred from "conspiracy" that there is something false, untrue or fanciful about the ideas that the conspiracy centers around. It is impossible to conclude that Mr. Kennedy believes/thinks/knows that these ideas are false. Additionally, in the current public dialogue the term has a pejorative and negative connation to it - this is true beyond question. It would be the equivalent to opening an article on Barack Obama, George Bush or Donald Trump with the phrase, "{X} is a warlord who has lead the United States in its' subjucation of the middle east" - the phrase to focus on here is, "warlord". That sentence is clearly partisan in nature, and it is designed to effect the thinking of the person reading the article. At wikipedia we have a responsibility to present just truth, factual statements that are the reflection of what has been discovered and has occurred. We must not aim to shape the thinking of the individuals. I second the effort to change this sentence.. it is not objective and against the ideals of Wikipedia. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources tell us that Jr. peddles conspiracy theories. Ergo that's what this article says. Whatever "Mr. Kennedy believes/thinks/knows" is not particularly addressed in this Wikipedia article. He writes whole books full of conspiracy theories, that he promotes conspiracy theories is undeniable and not partisan. If you don't like it, your beef is with Jr. -- M.boli (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
There is clearly a significant group of people in this community who disagree with you. The fact that this is in the talk section is indicative. We must not allow Wikipedia to become a hobby horse for people who don't like someone/something to sharpen their whetstone on. Wikipedia is meant to be objective. It's important that if we're going to start an article with a characterization like this, that we have a clear source that addresses the fact that - for example - "promoted the scientifically proven claim of a causal link between vaccines and autism" - Says who? What source? Where has it been demonstrated as false that there is absolutely no causal link whatsoever between the two?
It cannot be said that such statements like the one just mentioned, and the one mentioned in the headline of this talk discussion, and is believed by many to be a dubious sentence, does not belong in the article. There is a sizable body of evidence that contradicts much of what RFK has backed. We must remove this sentence as it is clearly a partisan sentence designed to shape the thinking of the reader. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
No one cares what your personal opinions are about RFK or vaccinations. The article follows the sources, that is the end of the discussion. Zaathras (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
It doesn’t belong in the lede, even though it’s true. It’s just not the most important thing about him anymore. Drsruli (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as you can see there is a sizable group of people who disagree with you. We're not discussing personal pecadillos here, but the independence and reliability of the sources we're reading. It is clear that this sentence is an attack on the subject, and therefore an attack on Wikipedia because it brings Wikipedia into disrepute by a clear display of bias in the introductory paragrpah. It is clear this is not the end of the discussion because there is a lively and active debate on this subject.
I am looking forward to our continued dialogue and coming to a sensible compromise so that we can continue to hold up the independence and bias standards built into wikipedia. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
there is a sizable group of people who disagree with you That does not matter on Wikipedia. See WP:!VOTE. You need good reasoning, not headcounts.
independence and reliability of the sources Let me guess: since they disagree with you, they must be pharma shills.
Your claim that it brings Wikipedia into disrepute is simply false: Calling a spade a spade is exactly what Wikipedia should do. It is a fact that Kennedy spreads anti-vax and anti-science disinformation, and we should not sweep that fact under the rug. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
And no one cares about how many Wikipedians disagree with something. See WP:!VOTE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
What a strange thing to say. Consensus doesn't matter? 141.98.142.74 (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Correct. Wikipedia is based in reliable sources. Wikipedia articles will not say that the Earth may be flat just because a majority of users want them to say it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes - this is a very strange thing to say. Consensus absolutely matters on wikipedia. This article introduction brings wikipedia into disrepute. It is clear you have strong opinions on this matter, but not everyone has strong feelings on this subject. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean that their alleging that the editing being done on this article is at the behest of the lords of some pharmaceutical company. Let's focus on continue to drive sensible discussion here in an objective matter so we can resolve this clearly questionable sentence. Thank you for your continued urgency to keeping wikipedia the best objective source for information on the internet. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This is bullshit. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, period. Consensus comes into play when the question is how to put it and on which sources are reliable (WP:RSP is the right place for that). Not on the content. RS decide the content.
you have strong opinions on this matter I think I heard similar things from flat-earthers and holocaust deniers. Read WP:YWAB for examples of pseudoscience fans whining that Wikipedia does not help them promote their favorite pseudoscience. This sort of ad-hominem rhetorics just shows that you have no actual, factual reasons for your opinion.
doesn't mean that their alleging that the editing being done on this article is at the behest of the lords of some pharmaceutical company It was a guess. I wrote it was a guess. Guesses are not conclusions. It's not that difficult.
this clearly questionable sentence Why is it "clearly questionable"? Because some people question it? By that reasoning, we would have to delete everything anyone ever disagreed with.
If you want to delete it, you need reasons. Not headcounts. Read argumentum ad populum. Even Wikipedia consensus is decided by the preponderance of reasons, not by headcounts. Read WP:!VOTE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Can't speak for other people here, but I think that most - if not all - of the points that are made do belong in the article. I am not personally in favor of deletion. I am in favor of ensuring that they are within the body of the article. I do not think they belong within the introductory paragraphs of the article, because their purpose is transparent.
I am reviewing Herodotus' article on Wikipedia. Herodotus unquestionably believed the earth was flat. How come in the body of his introduction we don't see it stated that he is a believer in the flat earth or that he is some kind of conspiracy theorist? Because Herodotus was a historian - whose career was focused on historical narratives. Do you wish to contend that the meat and mead of RFK's career is the promotion of strange ideas or whatever you're thinking? I don't even really know what this guy is all about that much, but I'm certain that his belief - and I think we can both agree the term 'belief' is telling - in the various theories around vaccines is by no means a distinguishing characteristic of the man or his career.
I appreciate you feel that I am making a personal attack on you because of the statements you just made. I think you mistake me though sir; I am critical of all partisans who treat wikipedia like their personal hobby horse. The statements in the introduction are so clearly designed to influence though. Wikipedia is a major site, many people use it to inform themselves about the world. Measured and fair language is not unreasonable.
May I propose that we rewrite the introduction (without making the actual edit) together, and see if we can come up with something more measured? In my mind, it even seems to me that we should include the beliefs around vaccines in the introduction - but in measured, clear and neutral language.
If you consent, I will write the first pass and then run it by you. We can then go back and forth until we can hit a tone we both agree upon. We can then run that change by the broader population here for a final change; we can either change the entire thing (and I hope you'll agree this is a good aspiration) or we can push for incorporating individual sentences into the existing article.
I think these are good proposals and would welcome your help on crafting a superior introduction. Will you help me in this? Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I do not think they belong within the introductory paragraphs of the article, because their purpose is transparent The purpose of the lede is to summarize the body of the article. It should omit the irrelevant parts. Kennedy has spread anti-science misinformation for decades, he has founded an organization dedicated to spreading anti-science misinformation, reliable sources have been talking about that for decades, therefore that is relevant and belongs in the lede.
I do not know how relevant Herodotus' ideas about the shape of the Earth are and if they are important enough to include in the lede there. Please talk about that on Talk:Herodotus, not here.
I don't even really know what this guy is all about that much, but I'm certain [..] Certainty comes from knowledge, not from ignorance. Maybe you should be persistent about things you really know, not about things you don't really know?
I appreciate you feel that I am making a personal attack on you No I don't. Read argumentum ad hominem. Ad hominem is not the same as a personal attack. It is an argument that is about the person instead of the subject. Like It is clear you have strong opinions on this matter. This discussion is not about me or about my "opinions", and therefore you should not talk about me or about my "opinions" but about the actual subject.
we should include the beliefs around vaccines in the introduction - but in measured, clear and neutral language We do not know those are his actual beliefs. As I said, he is a lawyer. We only know what he says about it, not that he believes it.
but in measured, clear and neutral language It is already clear and neutral enough. You have not made a case for changing it yet. All you have given us is empty rhetorics and fallacies, and they are the standard empty rhetorics and fallacies we always get on all Talk pages about fringe subjects.
If you consent, I will write the first pass and then run it by you This sounds as if you want to edit the article. Absolutely not. If you have a suggestion, bring it to this Talk page. That is what it is for.
This article has a history, and people have already put a lot of thought into it. Maybe you should read the archives of this Talk page. Also, this is not about you and me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
There are many people who are saying this should be changed. In fact, it appears you have not been keeping track very closely. Most people here disagree with you. By consensus this is something we're going to move forward with. I hope you will join us in reviewing the updated version to ensure fairness, neutrality and clearness. Thank you. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
There are many... There are a tiny handful of, including yourself single-purpose accounts. That really doesn't amount to much, to be honest. Zaathras (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Can you please provide a full list of every single purpose account and with it describe what evidence you base that off of? Please see example below:
1.) Account - Steve.A.Dore.4 - Account Registration Date. {Common Purpose of Edits} {4 Examples of Edits that fit that purpose}
Let's agree that at least 5 accounts with this kind of review will suffice.
If you look and see you will note that your mistaken and that there is a great deal of active and lively dialogue on this subject. One thing we all see is that this topic was created, and that many people have seconded the motion. If you're going to de-legitimize their position then I urge you to back up your allegation.
I look forward to hearing from you with your proof. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I do no engage with sealioning, sorry, you do not get to dictate how people respond to you and in what format. You've been barking up the tree since October to no avail, and the handful of one-and-done brigading accounts that agreed wit your position have not returned to the convo in a month. Zaathras (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
It does not matter how many people fell for Kennedy's anti-science propaganda. We follow the reliable sources and not the headcount of random people on the internet. And discussions on Wikipedia Talk pages are based on evaluating reliable sources. Stop it. You have no clue how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Another article you need to read: WP:IDHT. I already essentially told you the above before. Did you not read WP:!VOTE back then?
Just for your information: Kennedy said vaccines contain Thimerosal after it was removed from basically all of them. Fact. Kennedy said MMR vaccine causes autism after it was proven that it does not. Fact. This is about science, and Kennedy is a lawyer - someone whose job it is to defend a pre-defined position no matter whether it is true or not. He is defending a position that is, according to science, not true. Wikipedia is science-based, so we say it how it is and not how a group of gullible users misled by a lawyer wants it to be, independent of how big that group is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I was taken aback reading the first sentence, it's very clearly not written in a tone of neutrality. It sounds straight out of the left-wing media narrative where they constantly remind you that he's a conspiracy theorist every time they mention his name. 141.98.142.74 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources tell us that Jr. peddles conspiracy theories. Ergo that's what this article says. He writes whole books full of conspiracy theories, that he promotes conspiracy theories is undeniable. Sorry to hear you are "taken aback" by a reminder of this simple truth. -- M.boli (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The assertion made by the person with the IP starting in 141 was not what you said, but that it is clearly not written in a neutral tone. Please ensure you are adhering to wikipedia's community standards. Thank you. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
If we want to point out that RFK Jr is a vaccine skeptic, that is fine, perhaps in some lower section that describes the totality of his policy platform. But starting the article this way it is obvious what the author is trying to do in discrediting him based upon pre-determined bias. 69.127.116.72 (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
This has been settled by a Request for Comment already - it's available here if you'd like to have a look. Consensus determines this is what he's most notable for. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Of course, this is subject to change. Drsruli (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
It goes without saying that is subject to change. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is not about a "policy platform". We have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign for that. This article is about the guy himself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think it's worth mentioning that after the "public health-related conspiracy theories" section of the opening sentence, the first three of the four sources supporting this section (in the fifth citation) call Kennedy a conspiracy theorist. I do believe this is a worthy addition to the opening sentence. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I do not believe it is fair to introduce vaccine skepticism in the opening sentence, or even in the first few sentences of the introduction. Doing so appears to further a media effort to develop an image of the man for the reader when they might first be looking into him as a presidential candidate. Some left-leaning programs seem to always bring this up with every mention of his name, and this is received by the public as a push to maintain a narrative, which is unbecoming of open and politically-neutral fact reporting for which Wikipedia is known. 2601:281:8500:51F0:5899:243:B40D:5673 (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
RFK Jr's political raison d'etre is solely to spread his antivaxxer propaganda. We're not going to whitewash an article because of your feelings. We go by facts here. Zaathras (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
This is not his sole reason for running for president. Neither do reliable sources say this is his sole reason. Neither has he. Unless you can present a reliable source saying this his only reason for running, it remains your personal reading of his intentions. JjLi Li (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The lede sentences (the topic of this discussion thread) make no assertions about Jr.'s reasons for running. But reliable sources do say that he is a prominent for promoting anti-vax and conspiracy theories. So that is what this article says. -- M.boli (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Fair. But it also includes the word "misinformation". This is a reflection of reliable sources but I do wonder as someone new to this, does wikipedia change only once reliable news cites data or can the subject also cite something and it be included? For example, when RFK Jr cites data, is it the editors responsibility to include that data as a new sentence or do we only reflect the perspectives of news organizations on the reliable sources list? Forgive my ignorance but I couldn't find a clear answer on which takes precedence and it seems pertinent to the changes suggested. JjLi Li (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
You can suggest a revision of the lede sentences here on the talk page. Editors will engage with it. Otherwise this discussion seems to me like amorphous generalities. M.boli (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Any "data" Kennedy will give is likely to come from the frauds and quacks he naively accepts as authorities, and likely be long-refuted ignorant bullshit. Of course, the average reader will not be able to judge that. WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRINGE apply: we cannot take what he says at face value. It must come from people who know what they are talking about. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The pejorative in the lede sentence of this locked article undermines the claim of neutrality for this platform that many depend on for information free from personal commentary and bias. Sigmundane (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Attempting to whitewash the reality of RFK Jr.'s positions is what would be a neutrality violation, actually. Zaathras (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The term "whitewash" itself conveys that you have a personal and moral belief about the topic (vaccines in this case) and you believe RFK Jr. to be in violation of this and his views in need of "whitewashing". You betray your neutrality with the very language you use. Using the logic you have applied here, I could very well alter the first sentence of nearly every American political figure based on their promotion or opposition to vaccines and gene therapies based on what I believe. For instance, the lede sentence of Donald Trump's article could list him as a promoter of misinformation regarding the effectiveness of experimental, untested mRNA gene therapies for the treatment of Covid 19. I am not here to edit this article, just to read it. And I was embarrassed for the wikipedia community (of which I consider myself a member) when I did. I see no problem with the rest of the article. Sigmundane (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
you have a personal and moral belief Bullshit. According to the best reliable sources, Kennedy is an anti-vax quackery proponent, and that is not the fault of any user here. Zaathras is just following the rules. "Whitewashing" is a perfectly fine word here.
For instance, the lede sentence of Donald Trump's article Possibly. With Trump, there is the problem that if you list all his types of lies in the lede, it will be far too long. But that is not a matter for this Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I am not here to edit this article, just to read it. Stop wasting our time with your "opinions". --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I hate to add to the sea of talkquotes here but.. experimental, untested mRNA gene therapies for the treatment of Covid 19 - your barefaced POV is showing. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
That was the point of my comment. If I were to disingenuously insert a "barefaced POV" into the Donald Trump article's lede sentence, that is how it would read, but that would be inappropriate. So you are proving my point. :) This reminds me of rational conversations I used to try and have with my fundamentalist friends in the 80s and 90s. Makes wikipedia seem like a cult to be honest and I find that sad. But everything can't be perfect I suppose. Sigmundane (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Vaccine misinformation has been the guy's profession for quite a while. RFK Jr. literally is a professional anti-vax activist and misinformer. It is what he is hired to do as chair of CHD. If you don't like it complain to Jr. -- M.boli (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
So you are proving my point. No he does not. This is not how reasoning works.
This reminds me of That is also not how reasoning works. Do you really think that you can convince anybody if you compare them to fundamentalist friends? Please do not answer here. Instead, go away until you have a meaningful, helpful contribution to article improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I stand by my initial statement that "The pejorative in the lede sentence of this locked article undermines the claim of neutrality for this platform that many depend on for information free from personal commentary and bias." I also support @Cmsmith93 suggestion for the opening sentence/paragraph as well as @Zerotone's assertion that "moderation clearly failed" here. Cheers! Sigmundane (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
You "stand by" it because you fail to understand that Wikipedia has to follow the reliable sources. We cannot willy-nilly delete the public judgment of the experts because some random people on the internet demand that we have to follow their weird dogma and refuse to say clearly that one side in a conflict has nothing to show and the other side clearly wins. Go read WP:NPOV and try to understand it instead of trying to impose your own rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Only reliable sources are not the same thing as experts. And not one reliable source used quotes from the CDC or any scientific entity. Scientific American subjectively RFK Jr's interpretation of the simpsonwood transcripts, no talk of science. NBC News quotes Jezebel, a source that has been noted under the reliable sources list as unreliable for living persons. Their other links all link back to their own articles or to opinion pieces from other news outlets. An old Breitbart tactic. A guide to the anti-vax playbook from a non-profit is not a reliable source. And finally the BBC quotes his family member, also not an expert.
The word "misinformation" either needs to be changed or better sources provided. Either way, you can say Wikipedia should only follow reliable sources and I agree, but do not claim those reliable sources are experts, especially if those sources themselves aren't quoting any. JjLi Li (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
[N]ot one reliable source used quotes from the CDC or any scientific entity. Scientific American subjectively RFK Jr's interpretation of the simpsonwood transcripts, no talk of science.
  • It took a minute or two to discover the SciAm article referenced a National Academy of Science consensus report and a CDC summary of studies.
  • Your "subjectively" complaint is the author Mnookin illustrating that Jr. diced and distorted some quotes.
Give it up. -- M.boli (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the Scientific American article in terms of them linking to the CDC. That’s my mistake and I apologize. I stand by my assertions on the other sources. They should either be replaced (preferably) or removed and I stand by that none of these sources are written by an expert on viruses and shouldn’t be referred to as a means of discrediting the other editors here.
4 notes about the Scientific American source:
1. Seth Mnookin has a history with RFK Jr in regards to the publication of ‘deadly immunity’ as he worked for Salon during it’s publication in 2005. Mnookin published a book in 2011 called the Panic Virus, that initiated the retraction of RFK Jr’s article by Salon 6 years later.
2. The article never mentions the word “misinformation”. This word is quoted from the other sources which as I’ve already stated do not reference experts.
3. The reliable sources list says Scientific American can be referenced in terms of pop science, however the article does not get into the science at all, instead it only concerns itself with RFK Jr’s character and intentions.
4. The Simpsonwood transcripts are available for all to read, and it is subjective to suggest RFK Jr meant to distort the meaning of the words. If truncating quotes for brevity’s sake is not necessarily a disqualifer for reliable sources, then it shouldn’t be for RFK jr. Especially when the meaning is still intact.
I don’t mind referencing the SciAm article somewhere in the article, as I would like people to read what was truncated and decide for themselves. It’s just a question of does it remain in the lead and does it warrant the word “misinformation” whenever SciAm doesn’t use the word themselves? JjLi Li (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
none of these sources are written by an expert on viruses Kennedy's mistakes can be detected by everybody with a bit of science literacy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Debating vaccine denial and health-related misinformation are not what we do here. Those activities are Jr.'s specialty, his profession. This is what reliable sources tell us, it is what he does, and that is how we write the article. We do not need to delve into the scientific literature which Jr. contradicts, we do not need to debate his views, in order to accurately write this article. -- M.boli (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Time for the opening sentence to be revised. These are not the intrinsic descriptors for the subject, at least not anymore, or not at this time. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/us/rfk-jr-finances.html Even just reading our own article here, it’s clear that his public crusades against fracking and fossil fuel, for example, overshadow these other items. At least, they do now. Drsruli (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay so, in this article you've posted in three separate sections, the very first sentence refers to his involvement in spreading anti-vaccination falsehoods. One article obviously does not negate the large amount of coverage given to this, but even so, this one literally highlights his anti-vaccination views at the start and in great detail throughout. What's your argument here? ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Drsruli - hope you're doing well. It's not clear to me what is going on here, but it is clear a lot of people feel very heated and are contributing in activist editing. This article brings wikipedia into disrepute. I am going to draft a change and you and I can go back and forth on it.
There is a clear desire to make this article more balanced, yet it seems people who disagree deny that the very discussion they are taking part in even exists.
I will be in touch with you to begin. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Drafting a change between the two of you, seemingly not on this page, is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia and probably our policies too. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The lede sentences were the subject of an RfC not so long ago. They are accurate, they are NPOV, they not up for debate. Check the FAQ at the top of the talk page. -- M.boli (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Preserving Objectivity

Worthless conversation as the OP is unwilling to present reliable sources to back up their extreme claims. Closing this. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The introduction’s label of “anti-vaccine misinformation” is a subjective opinion of Mr. Kennedy’s statements and views. Many of his statements have in fact been proven via applicable evidence. Wikipedia does not serve as the judge of the validity or accuracy of an individual’s expressed opinions. That role is reserved for public discourse itself. This article contains unjustified labels. 173.199.212.190 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

We reflect WP:RS, which do judge the accuracy and validity of RFK Jrs opinions, more accurately the lack thereof. His statements on vaccines have been widely disproven. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
If that’s what Wikipedia has turned into it’s quite sad and makes public discourse and deliberation irrelevant. We mind as well be robots that have opinions fed to us. To your second point, I suggest reading and educating yourself about the material RFK cites in his statements. If the job of this site is to propagandize information of the medical establishment then such a motive should be known to all users. Fact finding and judgment is a two way street. 173.199.212.190 (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia has always followed RS. This is not new. You should read some of them, as they're cited in the article. You are engaging in WP:FRINGE theories without presenting any sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Clearly you missed the entire point of my post. The sources which validate Mr. Kennedys statements cannot be cited here because they don’t conform with the narrative of the medical establishment this site is trying to push. Thousands of medical studies by reputable organizations support Mr. Kennedys findings. The policies you mention are a disservice to public debate. There are no such things as “fringe theories”. “Valid Facts” are determined not by authority figures but by the people at large. They must be allowed to make subjective judgements for themselves. It’s no wonder Wikipedia and all other so called “objective” sources of information are failing. 173.199.212.190 (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

Asked, answered, denied. Zaathras (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You should probably remove the extremely bias information you are posting about RFK Jr. He is a brilliant and well respected lawyer who won cases against Monsanto and other corporations and their harm to the public, and all you are highlighting is that he is “anti-vaccination” which is logically incorrect. To not want one or to disagree with one vaccination does not mean you are against vaccinations in general which is what “anti-vax” means. Correct yourself. 2600:8800:217:7C00:15AE:37C:D1D2:38AE (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems there are many editors seeking ammendment to the lead, which was established a while ago by RfC. Suggest opening another RfC to determine current consensus for potential ammendment. 66.66.118.19 (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: see FAQ, read the article, see cited sources, read prior RFC discussion. No new arguments have been brought up in these requests and there is no reason to believe another RFC would change that result. Cannolis (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
At this point given there's a FAQ section and a round-in-circles template, it's probably safe enough to just auto-delete these drive-by IPs trying to argue against consensus without any policy-based arguments. Nothing new is ever brought to the table. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
https://www.worldwidehealthcenter.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/mercury-and-autism-accelerating-evidence.pdf.
Above link contains highly respected medical study cited by RFK in the past. It uncovers a significant correlation between mercury exposure in vaccinations and autism development in young children. Many of us have tried to present valid scientific and policy-based evidence that rejects the "fringe conspiracy" label pushed in this article. It is quite obvious that Wikipedia and its editors only consider the narratives of the medical establishment and Big Pharma. 2600:1700:C51:6120:6995:F3E7:C8A6:197F (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The notion of thiomersal causing autism has been sufficiently disproven by scientific consensus, in spite of what that one cherry-picked study says. We have a whole page on it at Thiomersal and vaccines. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Removing comments when they can't be refuted. Selective science. Information censorship. 2600:1700:C51:6120:6995:F3E7:C8A6:197F (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Complain about it elsewhere, there's no right to WP:FREESPEECH here, you don't get to be endlessly disruptive. Someone uninvolved should close this down and as ser! suggests, we should remove these nonsense conspiracy theories on sight. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Never argued for a right to free speech. You don't follow your own protocols. There is a clear agenda present on this site. And you've admitted it. 2600:1700:C51:6120:6995:F3E7:C8A6:197F (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
You complained of "censorship". Wikipedia "protocols" are quite alright with removing disruptive WP:FRINGE posts like yours. Our agenda is the verifiable truth, not conspiracy theories. Leave the science to the scientists. You have the personal right to not trust them, but not to spread that nonsense here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
1. Calling out censorship is not the same as advocating for free speech. 2. Verifiable Truths are truths that can be verified. You are making a selective distinction as to what constitutes valid science suited for your own agenda and narrative (that of the health care establishment). A conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy if it supported by evidence, which is the case here. You don't allow such evidence to be presented here. You make an arbitrary determination about what "nonsense" is and what is "real science". Again, you've admitted to the bias herein. 2600:1700:C51:6120:6995:F3E7:C8A6:197F (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The agenda of worldwidehealthcenter.net is selling wackadoodle health supplements. Every page I click on pops up an overlay dialogue to sell them. I went looking for articles, quickly found one on using electricity to kill viruses.
Trying to find that 18 year old survey article you posted was hopeless, the search box on the articles page returns supplements to sell.
And that is the web site offered up as providing evidence that RFK Jr. hooey is not hooey. If IP editor is concerned about the "agenda" of the sources of health information, I suggest directing concern in that direction. Here at Wikipedia we try to follow WP:MEDRS. -- M.boli (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
1. That study was only posted on that website. It was conducted by leading universities and renowned experts, published in multiple peer-reviewed journals.
2. I can also post the hundreds of other studies that uncover similar findings from leading organizations and universities, some as recently as last year.
3. RFK Jr is a respected attorney who has litigated hundreds of cases against vaccine manufacturers. If his arguments were not based in evidence, he would not have won the cases and damages he and his firm did. You can't lie in court. The evidence exists. It just will never be allowed on this site. 2600:1700:C51:6120:6995:F3E7:C8A6:197F (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
"RFK Jr is a respected attorney" Who the heck would respect that crackpot? Dimadick (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2024

Remove the clear and obvious personal opinion by calling him a conspiracy theorist. This is why no one wants to donate money to your BS website, you’re the ones spreading misinformation. You guys should be sued for the description used. 2600:6C5A:667F:969F:8071:E496:BA03:EEC (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the FAQ EvergreenFir (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

number of children

His campaign bio says he has 7 children but Wikipedia says 6 70.44.48.88 (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr. had 2 kids with wife 1, and 4 with wife 2. Wife 3 has a daughter from her previous marriage, but there's nothing to indicate RFK adopted her. So we should stick with 6 unless reliable sources are found to say 7, which thus far I do not see. Zaathras (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Typo

“Thimerasol” in the autism section should be corrected to “thimerosal”. 2605:B100:B06:CE1D:DDE4:74FD:CC58:61BD (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed EvergreenFir (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

In the Gender Dysphoria section, the sentence "Following media criticism, a spokesperson for Kennedy Jr.'s 2024 presidential campaign told CNN that he was being mischaracterized, and that he not was claiming..." has the words flipped. It should read "that he was not claiming". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKingpin28 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2023

The following should be removed from the opening statement on this profile due to misleading and bias information, "who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation[1][2][3][4] and public health conspiracy theories.[3][5]." 76.141.131.204 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. This text was settled upon via consensus and will only be undone that way. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree. 2601:681:8300:3560:9D58:C4A1:A0A4:C200 (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2023

For one, the info he has on health issues caused by vaccinations are not misinformation therefore, whomever is over this page has allowed falsified information to remain in writing about RFK Jr. I would also like to address the issue of calling his views conspiracy theories when he has facts to support his claims. 2601:4C3:C102:BAB0:21F9:4EDD:95FD:1DCE (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done We've discussed this a good hundred or so times on the talk page, and the consensus is that his views are conspiracy theories and that he has spread misinformation. This is what sources have said and this is what we will reflect on the page. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
It's not really about what information is true or false here on Wikipedia. It's about where the information comes from. The sources can be found in the following list of trusted sources so the information is 'true' by Wikipedia standards... http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Cmsmith93 (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_5&oldid=1197413186"