Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Sentence is biased

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

From Wikipedia Neutral Point of View page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Wikipedia’s Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian Hooker who reanalyzed CDC data

Andrew Wakefield

William Thompson CDC whistleblower

Dr. Robert Malone

Dr. Peter McCullough

The International Medical Council on Vaccination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for revising the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also have some issues with the lead as written.

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

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

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

I took a crack at rewriting it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

The lead of this article is still problematic, particularly given what RFK Junior said in his campaign speech, “People who advocate for safer vaccines should not be marginalized or denounced as anti-vaccine. I am pro-vaccine. I had all six of my children vaccinated. I believe that vaccines have saved the lives of hundreds of millions of humans over the past century and that broad vaccine coverage is critical to public health. But I want our vaccines to be as safe as possible.” – Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak: The Evidence Supporting the Immediate Removal of Mercury—a Known Neurotoxin—from Vaccines." So what exactly is the misinformation he promulgated during the COVID-vaccine mandate? Certainly, if there is evidence of spreading misinformation (and I am certainly open to this argument), it is not linked to in the lead. The lead reads, "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, member of the Kennedy family, 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate, and writer who has promoted COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy.[2][3][4]" I looked closely at the citations and they are not adequate, not in the least. Two of the citations, I believe, refer to the same event, in which Kennedy made an analogy to the Holocaust, for which he later walked back and apologized. (Something like this could go under controversies or apologies or whatever, but certainly not in a lead.) The third link to support his spreading COVID vaccine misinformation relies on a Guardian article in which RFK Jr. says his wife was the one who required guests to get vaccinated at their house party. This is different than spreading COVID misinformation. The man opposed COVID vaccine mandates, something far different than spreading misinformation about the vaccine. The lead could state he opposed COVID vaccine mandates--and that would be entirely accurate. One could draw a link between his opposition to mandates and the impact that had on vaccine hesitancy, but that would need to be clearly delineated with some sort of data, not just people's opinions. The lead is not reflective of Wikipedia's standard for neutrality. Marcy Winograd (got all vaccines and one booster, wore a mask, etc.) Marcywinograd (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The Evidence Supporting the Immediate Removal of Mercury—a Known Neurotoxin—from Vaccines Mercury has already long been removed (or was never there) from the vaccines Kennedy want it removed from.

for which he later walked back and apologized His "apology" was actually more a justification. His "Children's Health Defense" regularly equates mainstream scientists with Nazis.

The man opposed COVID vaccine mandates, something far different than spreading misinformation about the vaccine Yeah, he also sleeps and eats every day, which is also something far different. So what?

got all vaccines Nobody cares. Discussions are not about the discussers' positions, they are about their reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Then say his Children's Health Defense regularly blah, blah and provide the citation, the evidence.

His apology was more a justification--in your opinion or what?

"yeah, he also sleeps," ... This does not address the issue of lack of evidence. If you've got the evidence that he spread misinformation, cite it--don't cite articles about the same incident which he walked back.

Our standards should be higher. I'm not asserting that what you write is false, only that you have not provided the evidence. Marcywinograd (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This is about the lede, and the lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article. "Summarize" is different from "repeat everything". The body mentions his Holocaust comparison and apology; the lede mentions neither because there is no need to repeat it there.

There is no "lack of evidence". The lede summarizes the body, and the cites for him spreading untruths about vaccination are in the body. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You mention that the lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article, which is my main issue with the current version. A lot of the article focuses on his activism, which is not reflected in the lede itself.

I took a shot at re-writing it:

"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, activist, author, member of the Kennedy political family, and a 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate. Kennedy has advocated for environmentalism, renewable energy, human rights, peace and free speech. He is well-known as an anti-vaccine activist, and has been criticized for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories."

I think the wording "has been criticized for..." maintains a neutral voice while still addressing the issues with his anti-vaccine activism. 71.236.144.204 (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "has been criticized for" maintains a neutral voice and sounds more credible, lends more credibility to Wikipedia, than the current version "who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda." Marcywinograd (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

oppose, this has been discussed over and over again, see FAQ above. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say he is involved in the anti-vax movement, and even to refer to what he does as propaganda. But I wonder what you think about the points I raised above?

Namely, making the lead more representative of the article's content and including the language "has been criticized for" in order to maintain neutral voice? 71.236.144.204 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

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

If he wants support from Wikipedia for merging the Democrats into the Republican anti-science platform to bridge the divide between left and right, he can forget that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

I am new to editing the more controversial parts of Wikipedia (my previous edits have been about dogs, TV shows and the like). Before commenting I did read up on the relevant policies. They provide a good foundation, but in addition to the actual language of the policy there appears to be a good bit of "case law" (is there a WP specific term?) and debate that has led to some general understandings about how to interpret that policy.

With that in mind, I want to assure you that my intent here is not to be argumentative, but to better understand how to apply the policy.

I agree we should not whitewash anything or provide misleading information to readers, but I'm not clear on how the "has been criticized for" language does either?

It seems the specific words at issue (propaganda/misinformation) involve a degree of subjectivity. For example, propaganda implies manipulation and misinformation (as compared to disinformation) makes a determination of intent.

I'm not interested in quibbling over the specifics of this case, rather I'm saying using these words to describe someones actions is inherently a statement of opinion rather than fact. That remains true regardless of the underlying truth of the matter being discussed.

This seems as though it would fall under NPOV:

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

In which case this guideline would apply:

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

To be clear, it's not the actual words I take issue with, but rather the use of wikipedia's voice to make subjective statements, rather than attributing those statements to a source.

That being said, I take your point about false balance. Perhaps instead of "has been criticized for" we might say "has been widely criticized for"? That would maintain NPOV while also indicating the prominence of the view.

Feel free to add more environmental stuff to the lede, below the anti-vax stuff. But we will not whitewash it.

Although I've edited pages a fait bit, I never got around to making an actual user name so I am unable to edit the page. I'll probably make one for the future, given the apparent increase in protected pages. Perhaps for now if we agree upon changes someone who does have permission can make the edits?

The lede I suggested was based on chronological order. In terms of placement, I can see whitewashing going either way. Concluding sentences tend to have more impact but, given the current relevance of anti-vax activism, I can see the argument for not pushing that segment out of the page preview (although I'm not sure how many characters are generally are included in a preview, so perhaps this is not a concern)

What is your thinking on this point?

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

I agree wholeheartedly. This consideration did not factor into my suggested edits.

I do think we should be wary of the opposite effect as well. The appearance of bias against his political campaign may support his assertion that he has been censored and established sources of information are against him.

Part of what led me to suggest edits to this wiki was his claim on twitter that "Wikipedia is a Pharma propaganda vessel". Although I tend to disagree, this underscored for me the importance of maintaining neutrality. I have tried to set aside my personal biases when suggesting edits to this page. 71.236.144.204 (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:WOT. Some of this seems to be tales of your Wikipedia adventures, which do not belong on article Talk pages.

• You think that this article presents opinion as fact. Well, it does not. Wikipedia follows the scientific consensus, and the layman Kennedy has opinions far, far, outside that consensus. He trusts frauds like Andrew Wakefield and quacks like Mark Geier, and he does not trust the actual experts who know how science is supposed to work. Most of his opinions about vaccines are simply wrong. That is a fact, and we will present it as such. It is not subjective, it is a matter of competence (WP:CIR). It is WP:NPOV.
• You think that the language we use is "judgmental". See my first bullet point for that.
• You think that "has been criticized for X" somehow implies that we do not know if X is actually true. If it did, then that wording would be WP:FALSEBALANCE because of my first bullet point. But it does not. It just says, "he did X, and somebody did not like that". (BTW, "criticism" is applied too widely, it can mean that someone said "I disagree" and it can mean that someone minutely refuted all his claims. It is vague, and it is bad style.) If you wanted false balance, the "right" wording would be "has been accused of X".
• The appearance of bias against his political campaign may support his assertion That does not matter. It is part of the job of Wikipedia to say that people with crazy false worldviews have crazy false worldviews. It is not part of its job to pretend that they don't in order to avoid being attacked by them or to avoid "supporting their assertions".

For conspiracy theorists, everything is evidence of conspiracy theories.

• You contradict them: you confirm their ideas because you are part of the conspiracy.
• You agree with them: you confirm their ideas by agreeing.
• You do not mention them: you confirm their ideas because you are swiping the truth under the rug.
• You treat them as one of two parties: you confirm their ideas by taking them seriously.

Trying to avoid to confirm their ideas is a fool's game, so we can just as well be honest. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Please consider these sources regarding the use of the phrase "conspiracy theorist/theory"

This article from Tablet Magazine questioning the meaning of the term and it's applicability to RFK Jr.

It doesn’t take an alarmist to recognize how fast and far the term “conspiracy theory” has morphed from the way it was generally used even a decade ago. Once a description of a particular kind of recognizably insulated and cyclical counterlogic, “conspiracy theory” has become a flashing red light that is used to identify and suppress truths that powerful people find inconvenient. Whereas yesterday’s conspiracy theories involved feverish ruminations on secret cells of Freemasons, Catholics or Jews who communicated with their elders in Rome or Jerusalem through secret tunnel networks or codes, today’s conspiracy theories include whatever evidence-based realities threaten America’s flourishing networks of administrative state bureaucrats, credentialed propagandists, oligarchs, and spies.

This article from National Review address the matter directly

The constant disparagements that cling to RFK Jr. in news accounts — vaccine conspiracist, science-denying anti-vaxxer, and the like — are lazy and slanderous, telling us nothing about the merits of his arguments or about what has or has not actually been “debunked.”

This article from the Claremont Institute addresses the use of disparaging terms such as "conspiracy theorist" to censor and ridicule RFK

Mr. Kennedy is already a seasoned professional when it comes to getting his message out by non-traditional means: he has faced intense censorship and ridicule, first as an advocate for vaccine safety and then as the leading voice against the medical-industrial complex during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I maintain the term "conspiracy theory" is subjective and opinion based, in which case we must refrain from using wikipedia voice and should include these alternate opinions.

If you maintain it is objective, please find a source that substantively shows RFK is a conspiracy theorist as opposed to merely using the term it as a subjective descriptor. 71.236.144.204 (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

So, you want to change the subject and talk about the term "conspiracy theory" now.

But it is just more WP:FALSEBALANCE bullshit. Yes, there are people who disagree with the mainstream. We know that. It is easy to find links to their opinions. We know that. So, David Samuels, Matthew Scully and Claremont Institute are among them. Someone who thinks that conspiracy theories are true, someone who is so scientifically illiterate that he believes that Kennedy cites scientific methods and scientific evidence, and a crazy right-wing think-tank. So what? This is about Kennedy's opinion of medical science. Kennedy still believes a lot of long-refuted nonsense, and in order to explain why the medical science consensus disagrees with him, he claims that they (and Wikipedia) are all part of a Big Pharma conspiracy. We have sources far more competent than those three WP:PROFRINGE ones. High-quality sources beat low-quality ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not changing the subject. I'm addressing the part of your comment about conspiracy theories.

Claremont and National Review *are* the mainstream, just from the conservative POV. This is the first I've heard of Tablet so I don't know about them.

I have yet to come across a comprehensive list of outlets considered RS or fringe. Although I don't personally agree with the perspective of these outlets, they certainly seem to be RS. If not please point me to WP documentation supporting that.

I'm not calling for false balance. I'm calling for alternative opinions to be given appropriate weight per wiki guidelines.

Either way, you seem to have missed the point again. This is not about the underlying truth or scientific evidence of Kennedy's claims.

It's about the subjective language used to describe those claims, in this case "conspiracy theory".

Please stop WP:WOT by espousing upon unrelated issues and address the point I have made:

I maintain the term "conspiracy theory" is subjective and opinion based, in which case we must refrain from using wikipedia voice and should include these alternate opinions (with appropriate weight)

If you maintain it is objective, please find a source that substantively shows RFK is a conspiracy theorist as opposed to merely using the term it as a subjective descriptor. 71.236.144.204 (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not calling for false balance. I'm calling for alternative opinions to be given appropriate weight They are already given appropriate weight; namely either a short mention or nothing, depending on credibility. Giving them more would be false balance.

It's about the subjective language used to describe those claims, in this case "conspiracy theory" There is a huge body of literature on conspiracy theories. The term is not "subjective" in itself, though sometimes people may not use it correctly. The reliable sources which use them have considered the underlying truth or scientific evidence of Kennedy's claims as well as his reasoning, and they have come to the conclusion that he uses conspiracy theories. (Actually, it is pretty obvious that he does that.) You will not succeed in replacing sourced expert statements by your own opinion.

please find a source that substantively shows That is not a requirement for sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

If you were citing literature on conspiracy theories specifically referencing the views of RFK this might make sense. Since you are not, you are relying on original research and your opinion to make this determination.

The RS cited are not experts on conspiracy theory and there is no indication they have considered the underlying scientific evidence to make their determination. They are news sources, and should only be considered reliable within their area of expertise (which is neither science nor conspiracy theories) 71.236.144.204 (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine is an RS, they are specialists for alternative-medicine bullshit, and they regularly say Kennedy spreads conspiracy theories. Yes, they have considered the underlying scientific evidence. This is almost WP:SKYISBLUE territory.

• David Gorski: I’ve been writing about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his antivaccine propaganda for over 14 years. Indeed, two and a half years before I was one of the founding bloggers of this very blog, I made my first “splash” as a blogger with my very first viral post (or what passed for “going viral” back then) with my deconstruction of his antivaccine conspiracy- and pseudoscience-laden article “Deadly Immunity“ [4]
• Jann Bellamy: Long-time anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who will be delivering the keynote at one evening session of the “Summit,” is no stranger to regular SBM readers. His crackpot ideas about vaccines, lies and conspiracy mongering have been the subject of numerous SBM posts. [5]
• Gorski: I must admit, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., environmentalist and, unfortunately, big time antivaccine crank of the thimerosal fear mongering variety, has been rather busy lately. After having gone mostly silent on vaccine issues compared to his original flurry of misinformation and conspiracy mongering that began back in 2005, several years passed with almost nary a word on vaccines from the lesser scion of a great American family. [6]
• Gorski: That didn’t stop RFK, Jr. from spewing one conspiracy theory after another about how the CDC and big pharma supposedly “covered up” a link between mercury in vaccines and autism, all the while misrepresenting the science. [7]

There is no question about this. There is just a lot of ignorant people who fell for Kennedy's nonsense and refuse to accept that he is as far-out as they come as far as the science is concerned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

All of those sources are blog posts, stating the opinions of the two authors (three are by the same author).

Your claim of WP:SKYISBLUE relies upon your consistent misunderstanding of my point.

I do not dispute that sources label RFK a conspiracy theorist. I agree the SBM sources have more scientific grounding for this assertion than the news sources currently cited.

However, none of this addresses the point that the term is inherently subjective and should not be applied using wikivoice. 71.236.144.204 (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RSP#SBM. Gorski represents the consensus within science. Unless you find other real medical scientists disagreeing with him (not Andrew Wakefield, Mark Geier, or anyone else who has been stripped of their credentials for unethical behavior), your claim that it is an "opinion" has no factual foundation.

I repeat, with emphasis: There is a huge body of literature on conspiracy theories. The term is not "subjective" in itself. Your claim that it is "inherently subjective" is not related to Kennedy and has no factual foundation.

You are trying to swipe sourced text under the rug or relativize it, based on your own misconceptions about the term "conspiracy theory". That is not how Wikipedia works. See WP:OR, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:IDLI. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• The lead follows what the rest of the article says and what the vast swath of reliable sources have said about him. He has been known for the past 20 years as an anti-vaccine misinformation propagandist. That is his primary claim to notability and him announcing a presidential run recently doesn't change that. Silverseren^C 20:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree his announcement of a presidential run changes nothing, except perhaps the amount of scrutiny his page receives.

  I agree he is currently best known as an anti-vaccine activist. However for decades he has also been known for his activism in other areas, which make up at approximately half the article. In rewriting the lede I sought to avoid the recency bias, and adhere to the guidelines for biographies of living persons. 71.236.144.204 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• The lead is character assassination pure and simple. Imagine if the article about Barack Obama started thus "Barack Obama is an American politician who served as the 44th president of the United States from 2009 to 2017. For twenty years Obama was a disciple of the infamous professional race baiter Rev. Jeremiah Wright..." SelfOwnedCat (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  You'll be glad to know that we have an article about that: Jeremiah Wright controversy Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Low importance

My question is why this is low-importance. Granted, as leader of the NRDC, I remember Robert F Kennedy Jr. I remember his campaigns against clear-cutting in British Columbia, and I remember his opposition to Mitsubishi's salt plant in Baja California Sur, Mexico. But is Robert F Kennedy, Jr. still low-importance because his is still showing no "realistic" chance of getting the Democartic nomination? (16 May 2023) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:C305:78DF:A505:BEED:AA25:3474 (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello 2603. It's a reasonable question. In general, these ratings are informal, anyone who think they understand the criteria can set/change them, and tbh, most Wikipedians don't think about them very much unless we get into the more formal ones like WP:GA. Per for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Assessment#Importance_scale, I think changing to "mid" is not unreasonable, and if you want, you can do that. If someone disagrees with you, they can change it again. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Think it’s high importance given that he’s polling second in the Democratic primary (around 20%). JustinReilly (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please address this point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This isn't similar to Jill Stein, whose comments were twisted by political opponents to portray her as an anti-vaxxer. A fact check by Snopes found the claim to be false.[8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2023

This is inaccurate

writer who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda[2][3][4] and health-related conspiracy theories.[5][6][7]

He doesn’t promote anti vaccine…. He is FOR vaccines… he’s against misinformation and this is mislead 2602:306:C597:DB50:C94C:A8C5:B5DA:B341 (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

We summarize what reliable sources say. No more and no less. Cullen328 (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion for the leading paragraph to the article

If someone can help me make a vote for this in some committee that'd be really nice. Or if the vote can be taken here that'd be awesome too. Once the suggestion has been properly molded with all of your help!

I don't know all the neologisms and bureaucratic terminology that Wikipedia operates under and I dont have time to learn them in and out. But I do care that voices be heard that relate to them as I know Wikipedia editors take them seriously and they are there to maintain cohesion. So if people commenting on this suggestion could list what Wikipedia policy's and rules would support vs oppose this suggestion that'd be fantastic because I could try and work a little bit on my suggestion to make it fit as well as I can understand them at a glance. That is if there are any such that would be problematic in regards to my suggestion. Otherwise I move that we implement it of course.

Suggestion: The article should lead with "NPOV" which I think is a Wikipedia policy, aka neutral point of view. We all know that Anti Vaccine Propaganda and "conspiracy theories" ( no matter how common actual conspiracies are in criminology ) are negatively loaded terms. He is primarily an environmental lawyer, that is his profession, yet this isn't even sourced. That's how little people care about it which shows how infected this issue is. My suggestion includes [Sources] tags to represent where I and others would find or use already existing sources. Its only there as a placeholder as I assume that most reasonable readers and editors will agree that all of this can be sourced.

Currently the introductory sentence is as follows: ...American environmental lawyer and writer who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda[2][3][4] and health-related conspiracy theories.[5][6][7]

I'd expand that first sentence to something like: "...American environmental and human rights lawyer who has focused on supporting marginalized communities in plights involving large corporations"[Sources]. I would then continue: "He is described by several mainstream sources as a Anti-Vaccine propagandist[Sources], though he rejects the label himself[Sources]. Additionally he is known for having promoted several conspiracy theories in regards to Covid-19 [Sources] including the lab leak theory which subsequently became mainstream itself [Sources]. He is also currently a presidential candidate for the democratic party nomination [Sources]"

Alternative 2: Instead of focusing on his personal denial of being an anti-vaccine propagandist would you be in favour of mentioning the fact that multiple mainstream sources do not describe him as an anti-vaccine propagandist.

So for example "While multiple mainstream sources describe RFK jr as a anti vaccine propagandist[Source], others completely omit that from their summaries of his history or career[Source]" Im also wonder what would be the best to focus on in regards to conspiracy theories? His advocacy of conspiracy theories in general as suggested by one user below, his "healthrelated conspiracy theories" as it is now (but then it's a bit of a double with the vaccine thing?) or his "Covid 19 Conspiracy theories"? I suggest the latter as that is most relevant today and to his presidential campaign (He keeps mentioning the lockdowns constantly, etc)

English is not my first language so to any additions or editions to make those sentences flow better is also appreciated. I think this , together with links (internal in wikipedia) to Anti Vaccine propagand and Conspiracy Theories for Covid 19 would balance out the NPOV. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Registered on 2nd June, and promptly showing up here.

Yes, the evil "mainstream". At least you should have provided some of those [sources].

In any case see the FAQs --Julius Senegal (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I registered my account to make this suggestion. I hope I didn't do something wrong. Could you help me if I did?

Why do you think mainstream sources are evil?

How is the FAQ relevant for my suggestion? I wish to keep both entries.

If you like my suggestion and if it gets some more support I'll get all the sources up and working and edit the article, do I have your support if I can source everything in the suggestion with reliable sources?

Thank you! CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? This article is about the guy who filed a class action suit against Joe Biden a mere two months ago alleging censorship of news of Hunter Biden's laptop. He also rants about the supposed dangers smart meters and 5G cell phones. And did you know about the World Health Organization "global governance agenda" to take away everyone's freedom?

The lede to this article reflects the most common ways Kennedy is ID-ed from reliable sources. My personal opinion is they are too kind, politely not detailing the wackadoodlian precincts this formerly respected environmental lawyer has been inhabiting the past two decades. But my opinion doesn't matter. RFKJr.'s claim to notability rests on his anti-vaccine activism and conspiracy mongering, as well as environmental lawyering. -- M.boli (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you please adress my suggestion and what policies you think it goes against if any or how you'd improve my suggestion. Would you like an addition about that he is critical of the alleged censorship of the Hunter Biden thing? (or that he alleged censorship if you like that flow more) I don't object to that at all, I think its neutral, though its not really mentioned much elsewhere in the article. I think his conspiracy theories about Covid and Vaccines are more relevant.

Cheers PS: In terms of notablity that's always hard to measure, you speak of as its clear that he's more notable for one thing or an other without saying why. One measure I know is used on Wikipedia is Google search results and there are far more results for "Environment" vs "Vacccines" for his name as well as "Environmental lawyer" vs "vaccine propaganda" and "Vaccine-propaganda" combined. I Still want to keep both of course. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

See my previous comments, where I surveyed the recent announcement of candidacy. Most of the reliable sources ID-ed him as the anti-vaccine guy in the first or second sentences.

Regarding your suggested wording above, here is a paraphrase:

John Wilkes Booth was a popular American thespian, sometimes known as the handsomest man in America, who toured the country headlining plays. He was described by several sources as being a traitor Confederate and murdering Abraham Lincoln, though he said he is not a traitor and Lincoln's murder subsequently was viewed as not a bad thing by some mainstream historians.

If I can break that down:

• the proposed first sentence waxing at length about RJKJr's career as an environmental lawyer is similar to waxing about Booth as a popular, touring thespian. It is true, but whitewashes the bad stuff out of the lede sentence.
• the proposed he is described by several sources as an anti-vaccine propagandist is every bit as cracked as Booth was described by several sources as being a traitor Confederate and murdering Abraham Lincoln. Anti-vaccine propaganda is what RFKJr does. For nearly a decade headed the premier anti-vaccine organization in the U.S., he writes crackpot books and articles and files lawsuits. This is how our reliable sources tag him.
• the coda he is known for ... the lab leak theory which subsequently became mainstream itself would be quickly reverted by most experienced editors as original research. You cannot find reliable medical reference which says RFKJr proven prescient on Covid!.

Enough! I've been taking this un-serious suggestion too seriously. And people keep popping up in the talk pages attempting to re-open the topic. Over and out. -- M.boli (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not the same thing. I can assure you my suggestion is very serious.

Please list any policies it would conflict with for me to take your objection seriously or I will be bold and edit in the future.

1. If Booth was well known before the murder of Abraham Lincoln as the handsomest man in America it would be worth including though obviously a murder would be the most important part. For example if Miss America murdered president Biden it would be normal to include what she was before she murdered the president. In addition to this Kennedy's environmental and humanitarian work is more notable according to google than his agitation against vaccines. If you have any other metric you'd like me to consider please mention it in your subsequent reply. Take note that I am not at all advocating the removal of either "Anti-Vaccine propaganidist" (though that last part is really nasty, for who is he propagating?advocate would be better) nor "Consiracay Theorist" or "Covid 19 /Health related conspiracy theori(es)". Just that his life long legacy be summarized in a NPOV way that includes his decades of work to protect water, fish and human rights.

2. If Boothes denied shooting Linclon his denial should be included. Your paraphrasing would look something like this in actuality: Booth was condemned by both lower and higher courts for the murder of Lincoln but rejected this and denied his guilt to the end.

If there never was a trial and just a media trial it would look something like this:

Boothes was described by mainstream newspapers in America as having murdered the president but when ever asked about that he rejected it. I think that's perfectly reasonable.

3. I never said RFK JR was proven prescient on Covid. Where do you infer that? Instead I have mainstream , reliable sources that today say that the lab leak theory which RFK Jr advocated for is now a considered to be a valid conspiracy theory. It would add balance to the otherwise negative connotation of being a conspiracy theorist, as his skepticism in at least this case was proven to be justified. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

RFK Jr.'s "lifelong legacy" includes nearly two decades of dedicated vaccine denial, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. That's his most recent two decades. And it is how reliable sources most frquently ID him. I illustrated examples from his announcemnt about running for president, just click on the link to see AP, NY Times, CNN, and The Hill.

The thrust of your suggestion is to whitewash this main sorry claim to notability out of the lede sentences. Partly by physicially removing it from the lede sentence, and partly by adding weasly words saying other people describe him as such. Horse manure. He has run the most prominent vaccine-denying organization in the U.S. since 2015. Being an anti-vax misinformation conspiracy promoter is his freaking job.

You also added some unsupported original research (more like wishful thinking) to the proposed lede paragraph. You picked one small non-notable point, then added language designed to make it appear that RFK Jr. is right on that point. I see no conceivable reason to put this crap in the lede except to mislead the reader about his vast history of misinformation.

Nobody here has hid that RFK Jr. has a notable legacy as an environmental lawyer and activist. That is the first thing after his birth date in the lede. It is the substance of the whole second (and biggest) paragraph of the lede.

Possibly you think that this article's description of his environmental and related advocacy could profitably be beefed up. That material is already quite extensive in this article, but maybe it could indeed be improved.

But that's not what you are proposing. You are proposing to rewrite the lede to describe JFK Jr. as something that he isn't. The main thrust of your proposed changes is exactly to diminish the very reason that RFK Jr. is most known to the public, the ID that main news organizations apply.

This issue has come up multiple times. Read through the archived discussions. The evidence and the consenus all pointed to the same conclusion. M.boli (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I will not stand for this. Both you and Julius are insinuating I want to remove something. I dont want to remove anything. I want to keep Anti Vaccine Propagandist and Conspiracy Theorist (i'd just change "Health-related conspiracy theorist to Covid 19 conspiracy theorist, or theories, what ever is in the article but its no biggie either way) .

All I want to do is add to the extremely narrow, non NPOV headline/lead. Not remove anything. Until you acknowledge this basic fact, that is clearly in my suggestion, clear as daylight and undisputable I have nothing else to add to you as I feel you're either ignorant or purposefully misrepresenting my suggestion. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Do not add content to a contribution someone has already responded to. It distorts the discussion.

You added two paragraphs containing this suggestion: would you be in favour of mentioning the fact that multiple mainstream sources do not describe him as an anti-vaccine propagandist

Wikipedia describes what sources say, not what they do not say. The vast majority of sources, starting from journals on particle physics and ending with cookbooks, do not mention Kennedy at all. We do not conclude that he is unimportant and that this article should be deleted.

It does not matter that sources exist which mention him and do not describe him as antivax. See Argument from silence. Your suggestion others completely omit that from their summaries of his history or career is WP:OR.

See WP:GOOGLECHECK, section Search engines cannot, especially Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, on why your reasoning about "Environment" vs. "vacccines" is irrelevant.

Your attempt at WP:FALSEBALANCE and whitewashing will fail, just as similar attempts failed in the past. See the archives. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll be blunt: this won't work. A vast majority of editors know that, according to sources, RFK Jr. promotes anti-vaccine propaganda. On a related note, I'm pretty sure one of the only thing editors are all agreeing with on this website is that anti-vaccine propaganda is rubbish. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It's finished. @CompromisingSuggestion has been blocked indefinitely. They had been all over Teahouse and Village Pump trying to get permission to put their changes in this article. Also whining about maltreatment. Ultimately @CS tangled with an admin who had pointed out there was no freaking way @CS was the newbie they presented themself to be. -- M.boli (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Conspiracy theorist"

"The environmental lawyer turned conspiracy theorist"

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

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

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

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

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