Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Why does the lead keep getting changed?

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

---

I thought we're all subject to the conclusion of the RfC, "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer and author who is known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines, and public health–related conspiracy theories. He is a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination in the 2024 presidential election."? Who keeps changing the lead without discussing it here?

The latest change reads like all he's doing right now is going around the country promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories. Even if there is consensus that he is talking about those two things while he campaigns for president, he's talking about two dozen other things as well. Cmsmith93 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

What are you on about? There does not appear to have been a significant change to the lead in months. Zaathras (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're confused about Zaathras. I quoted the RfC conclusion and paraphrased the current version. Idk, maybe the most recent was when Firefangledfeathers did his best to revert it back (because somebody changed it in between his change and the RfC conclusion). Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers has not edited this article since last October, and you refer to "the latest change" when there has been literally no such thing in months. Whatever your issue is, it isn't my fault that you're not articulating your complaint correctly. If you're bringing up an RfC, link it. If you're concerned with different versions of the article, link them (see WP:DIFF for a tutorial. Zaathras (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You're going to edit the article if I link the RfC and the right historical change? Cmsmith93 (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This is all very oblique. Are you proposing an actual change? If so, please say what it is and give a rationale. Bon courage (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Rationale is above, "the latest change...", but expanding on that, the anti-vaccine part and conspiracy theory part should both be presented in the past tense. I think the following would be an improvement...

"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials as RFK Jr. and the nickname Bobby, is an American politician, environmental lawyer and activist. A member of the Kennedy family, Kennedy is a son of U.S. attorney general and senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of U.S. president John F. Kennedy and senator Ted Kennedy. He is currently campaigning as an independent candidate in the 2024 presidential election. He has promoted anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories. He is the chairman and founder of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group." Cmsmith93 (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Lol, ...should be presented in the past tense is funny, when the man was just peddling his own Wuhan conspiracy book on 1-15-24. Zaathras (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Please carefully read what I said and then respond... "Even if there is consensus that he is talking about those two things while he campaigns for president, he's talking about two dozen other things as well." Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

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

It would most certainly not be an improvement, as it whitewashes what RFK Jr. is primarily known for. Zaathras (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I do remember it said something like, "he is known for anti-vaccine misinformation and conspiracy theories", but it reads differently now. Now the 'known' part seems to only apply to his nicknames.

Also, how do you know that's what he's mainly known for? None of those sources support that claim. Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I know because I am able to, er, read? Many, many citations are in the article that detail his antivaxx notoriety. Zaathras (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah come on Zaathras, you're leaning towards bad faith there. I've already gone through the sources. I don't know how to cite my post but in archive 3 it's... The evidence for the two claims in the first sentence are too weak. Cmsmith93 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how to cite my post Click on "history", look for your contribution, and when you see the diff between before you wrote and after, copy the https address. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree as well that this is an improvement and more closely follows the guidance in WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Full treatment of these topics in the article is necessary and important. No one is suggesting otherwise. However, the inclusion of these terms in the first 2 sentences is being pushed by a group of editors determined to ensure it shows up in the blurb for RFK jr in Google search results. I find this behavior a disposable abuse of Wikipedia. SkotyWA^T_C 03:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Yeah, we know. It's a conspiracy again, likely paid for by Big Pharma.

If you think it does not belong in the first sentence, you need valid reasons. "I do not want it to appear in Google search results" is not a valid reason. (Are you aware that you people's reasoning makes you "a group of editors determined to ensure it does not show up in the blurb for RFK jr in Google search results"?) --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I should feel ashamed for advocating for evenhanded treatment of a living person in their biography article on Wikipedia. I'm so evil. SkotyWA^T_C 01:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

evenhanded treatment You should read WP:FALSEBALANCE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I suggest: "activist who promotes anti-vaccine measures citing public health concerns." 172.56.96.30 (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

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

"Independent" vs "We the People" Party?

It seems that the party affiliation should be changed to We the People Party -- Any objections? - JonathanCross (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Some of the Covid stuff is stale and needs updating

NIH has been accused of making money off the patents of Moderna vaccine. This includes Fauci

Department of Energy says Covid was likely a lab leak, a US GOVERNMENT AGENCY

Fauci and NIH employees made money off vaccines via royaltieshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC545012/

This page is patently managed by political operatives as it's locked and nothing ever changes Cocoablini (talk). 23:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

No, he's not mentioned, but the "conspiracy theories" he's accused of spreading in this very article are mentioned. The points in this article have references that are older than the material Cocoablini is providing. In the name of WP:BLP we should update this article to remove stale, debunked accusations about a living person as quickly as possible. SkotyWA^T_C 03:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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

So if he said something was true and it's later proven to be true, you're saying it can only be removed from the article if we find a source that directly mentions him in it? SkotyWA^T_C 03:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE have special requirements on Wikipedia to prevent promotion of pseudoscience and conspiracies in wiki-voice. This article is about a long-term pseudoscience pusher and there's been many an attempt by drive-by users to whitewash that information. Silverseren^C 03:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Request

Stop archiving requests and comments regarding the first sentence for 60 days. Leaving the discussions easily available to see, may even deter some of the repeated requests. Drsruli (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Long experience of contentious pages shows that people don't read previous discussions, so they end up starting duplicate (or nearly so) requests all the time, which was the case with a number of those I archived; also, there is little point in keeping discussions that petered out more than a month ago. Incidentally, it has been found that a better way of dissuading the same requests over and over again is an edit-notice, so that might be considered. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Please add his greatest accomplishments to the opening biography.

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

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

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

References

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2024

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2024

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

Remove…

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

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

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

lol user makes good point and admin troll doesn't even give response, just shuts it down. 2603:6011:2C00:3C5:24F6:9449:D06F:8CEE (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Question regarding use of term Conspiracy Theory

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

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

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

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