Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Neutral tone

This article discusses a controversial presidential candidate but does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards, especially in the introductory paragraphs.

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

1) It is advisable to avoid using loaded language such as "anti-vaccine activist" or "conspiracy theorist" at the beginning. Such terms can be perceived as judgmental labels. Instead, describe his positions objectively, for example, "has expressed skepticism about vaccine safety" or "has promoted theories questioning the mainstream COVID-19 narrative."

2) Focus on factual claims that can be sourced and attributed, rather than making definitive statements about what constitutes "misinformation." For instance, instead of declaring his group as "a leading proponent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation," you could say something like "His advocacy group has made claims challenging the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, which have been disputed by public health authorities."

3) Offer balanced coverage by including information about his background, qualifications, and stated motivations, not just presenting opposition viewpoints. This approach allows readers to form their own evaluations.

4) Use reputable sources that represent a diverse range of perspectives when attributing claims and viewpoints. It is important to note that even experts can have political biases.

In the 1968 election, Walter Cronkite's famous neutral delivery of news in relation to George Wallace serves as a suitable example. I recommend that this article maintain a more neutral tone, particularly in the introductory paragraphs. Wikipedia should remain impartial and not favor any specific political viewpoint. Mfrittman (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The key part of the quoted policy is "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The policy does not mean we whitewash things. The reliable sources call him an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

When covering controversial topics or public figures expressing views that are disputed by mainstream sources, it is preferable to represent the claims objectively and attribute them to the sources making those claims, rather than using potentially loaded language or appearing to take a stance on the accuracy of the claims. The goal should be to inform readers about the existence of the controversial viewpoints without endorsing or condemning them through subjective characterizations. Mfrittman (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We do represent the claims objectively. They are objectively false. Suggesting otherwise would be misinforming our readers. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

His views may be false but that does not make someone a conspiracy theorist and you know that. The term is inappropriate and gives a specific image on Kennedy's character. Specifically, one that wears tin foil hats and tries to convince people that lizard people live in the white house. 153.231.10.14 (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources call him that. It does not matter that you disagree with them. This is Wikipedia. Reliable sources win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You call them 'reliable sources', I call them biased sources who 'created terms and labels' that misrepresent Mr. Kennedy's actual views. I can not locate one place going back to 1970 in my extensive research of this presidential candidate, where Kennedy himself ever says anything 'other than' he wants 'safe vaccines' that are 'properly tested'. So he is technically not anti-vaxx, he is a 'safe vaccine activist'. The mainstream media repeating the term 'anti-vaxx' over and over again, does not make it true.

Is it a conflict of interest if the media outlets, and government (NIH) receive more than 50% of their AD revenues and budgets from Big Pharma, and Kennedy is an attorney who sues Big pharma and those agencies for a living? So where are your 'reliable sources' getting their info? Did they just create those labels out of thin air to appease their pharmaceutical clients? Show me an 'original source' where kennedy says he is against 'all vaccines'. Just one.

“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 -Thimeriosal book (2015)

“They passed the vaccine act in 1986. And the vaccine act gave immunity from liability to all vaccine companies, if you, for any injury, for negligence. No matter how negligent you are, no matter how reckless your conduct, no matter how toxic the ingredient, how shoddily tested or manufactured the product, no matter how grievous your injury, you’re a vaccine company, you cannot be sued. This was a huge gift for this industry cause the biggest cost for every medical product is downstream liabilities. And all of a sudden, those disappeared. So you’re not only taking a way that cost, and incentivizing many new vaccines, your also dis-incentivizing, you’re removing the incentive to make them safe. No matter how dangerous they are, they don’t care, because they can’t be sued.”….  EAU vaccines “exempt from pre-licensing safety. They don’t have to be tested, and they’re not!” – RFK Jr (2023)

“That’s not true… What I have said is vaccines, I’m not anti-vaccine. I think vaccines should be subjected to the same level of rigorous testing as other medications. And that is my only position.  I fought to get mercury out of fish for 40 years, and nobody called me anti-fish. I’m not anti vaccines just because I want safe vaccines. I think everybody wants safe vaccines, and as we all now recognize, the covid vaccines were neither safe, nor effective.” - RFK JR link

“I am fearlessly Pro vaccine, I wanna see, I’ve had all six of my children vaccinated, I wanna see everybody taking their vaccines, we need full coverage. People don’t take them because they no longer believe in the CDC, cause they can see the science! We spent three years looking at every peer reviewed science publication ever written on Thimerosal. We found over 500 peer reviewed publications, all of them say it is the most potent neurotoxin that is not radioactive, why… it's 30 times more toxic than lead. Why would we put that in childrens, a child, or pregnant woman if we didn’t have too. And we’ve already been shown by its removal from the pediatric vaccines, that we have good alternatives, we don’t need it anymore.” - RFK JR (2014)

In a 2023 interview link Lex Fridman asked: "You’ve talked about that the media slanders you by calling you an anti-vaxxer, and you’ve said that you’re not anti-vaccine, you’re pro safe vaccine. Difficult question, can you name any vaccines that you think are good? And RFKJ's response was : "I think some of the live virus vaccines are probably averting more problems than they’re causing."

If he were anti-vaxx he would not say 'some of the live viruses are good'. Pantress (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh he denied that he's an anti-vaxxer when asked directly? WP:MANDY applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Those "reliable sources" are biased news networks. Shameful by Wikipedia to be so blatantly paid off. Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump's pages are written without these loaded and biased labels. 173.47.198.221 (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

If Biden or Trump were anti-vaxxers, their pages would say so. Blaming the reliable sources is not going to get you anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is a lack of understanding of NPOV. NPOV does not mean that our articles have to come across is neutral. NPOV means that our articles have to reflect reliable sources. All suggestions you propose are not neutral as they cast doubt on vaccines and misportray his antivaccine activism in contradiction to RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It is wise for Wikipedia to refrain from making declarative statements that could be perceived as taking sides prematurely. When it comes to the origins and response of COVID-19, while some have labeled certain perspectives as "fringe" or based on misinformation, the truth is that a complete understanding is still evolving. Credible sources have presented differing viewpoints that were initially dismissed by others.

Maintaining a neutral point of view entails presenting a range of prominent perspectives on such unresolved issues without prejudging their validity. Labelling positions as "fringe science" or "conspiracy theories" may amount to editorializing if it conflicts with how reputable sources are characterizing those views. Perceived "consensus" perspectives have been overturned by new evidence and analysis in the past.

In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, it is advisable to use precise, unbiased language directly from reliable sources when discussing the various claims and allegations surrounding COVID-19. This approach avoids assuming which perspectives will ultimately be proven right or wrong in the future. Striving for neutrality means refraining from definitively dismissing views that, while currently contentious, are supported by credible sourcing. The objective is to inform, rather than advocate for a particular narrative.

Does this revised explanation encapsulate the essence of representing contentious, unsettled topics like COVID-19 from a neutral standpoint that seeks impartiality? I have tried to emphasize the importance of achieving balance and exercising caution when addressing divisive issues where the full picture is still emerging. Mfrittman (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You are emphasizing WP:FALSEBALANCE. RFK Jr's views on vaccines are widely discredited. We reflect what reliable sources say, period. If reliable sources change what they say, then we change what we say. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the majority of these reliable sources reflect a specific political perspective. Should sources from other political viewpoints be deemed unreliable solely because they differ? Wikipedia’s role is not to take sides but to present balanced, verifiable information from a wide array of perspectives.

In the US, much of the mainstream media is controlled by a handful of corporations, each with its own interests. Some lean Democratic, others Republican, and both sides influence the content they produce. As a result, it's essential to consider the broader context and potential biases in the information we cite. Independent scholarly works and smaller news agencies might offer less biased reporting, which is crucial for maintaining Wikipedia's neutrality.

RFK Jr. is an environmental lawyer who has often challenged powerful corporations on pollution issues. It's worth noting that these corporations have significant resources to influence public opinion and expert commentary. While many criticisms of him are likely valid, we must be cautious of potential political agendas behind these critiques. RFK Jr.'s stances may conflict with the interests of established organizations, and this conflict could shape the portrayal of his views.

Some of his claims might be discredited, while others might not be, and it’s essential to acknowledge this uncertainty. Wikipedia should not become a platform for perpetuating any particular viewpoint, especially during an election cycle when political motivations are heightened. We should focus on presenting information in a balanced manner, reflecting a wide range of reliable sources without leaning into the language that could be perceived as biased.

I understand that many trust the mainstream media's perspective, but there's a slight possibility that Wikipedia could unintentionally mirror any biases present. It would be more appropriate to use neutral language and present all sides fairly. Just because multiple sources describe someone in a certain way doesn't mean Wikipedia should adopt that language.

By ensuring our content is presented without bias, we uphold Wikipedia’s standards and provide a resource that everyone can trust, regardless of their political views. Mfrittman (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We've gone over these same exact arguments over and over again on this talk page. I'm not rehashing it anymore here with you. You can read above on this talk page and in the talk page archives to get caught up. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand that these arguments have been discussed extensively. However, the repeated nature of these comments suggests there might be ongoing concerns about the article's neutrality. My goal is not to debate political beliefs but to ensure that we uphold Wikipedia's standards for balanced and unbiased content. Let's make sure we are reflecting a wide range of reliable sources fairly. Mfrittman (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

the repeated nature of these comments suggests there might be ongoing concerns about the article's neutrality ... No. What it suggests a handful of single-purpose accounts, one-and-done IP editors, or those generally unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy trying to make an article reflect their own biases. Zaathras (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

↑ Exactly this. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Bingo ! Moxy🍁 01:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. I recognize the value of upholding Wikipedia's principles and remaining impartial. To be clear, I am contributing to this talk page because I genuinely want to make sure that the article satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for impartial and balanced material.

I welcome you to examine my editing history, which is accessible to the public, in response to the assertion that these comments are solely coming from accounts with a specific aim or from people who are not familiar with Wikipedia policies. My past demonstrates my contributions to a wide range of subjects, with a primary emphasis on science and color theory. This proves that my account isn't exclusively focused on pursuing any certain goal.

By ensuring that the article gives a well-rounded and impartial view, especially in light of the various opinions on the topic, my goal here is not to represent personal biases. I think it's critical that we take the criticism seriously and try to improve the article's objectivity so that it complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. Mfrittman (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved administrator. It is time to make an actionable proposal to improve the article or move on. What text should be added or removed? What source would support the change? Why should it be made? This is not a forum where thoughts about biases or anything else are exchanged. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It isn't easy to present an objective piece about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. because of his broad condemnation in the mainstream media. This critique needs to be acknowledged, but it's also important to recognize the existence of biases and work toward a more balanced and impartial analysis. Following Wikipedia's guidelines, my goal is that the article be considered fair by people representing different views. I will present a proposal with suggestions in the coming days. Mfrittman (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

my goal is that the article be considered fair by people representing different views This is impossible. Wikipedia guidelines demand that fringe ideas be put into a mainstream context without any false balance. Kennedy fanbois will never consider anything like that fair. It's their problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Mffrittman - I agree wholeheartedly. There is a clear bias happening here. Otherwise they wouldn't start off his CAREER section with the headline "Conviction for heroin possession". I never knew that 'addiction, conviction, and heroin possession' was a CAREER choice. I don't have a problem with the mentioning his heroin addiction at all, he talks openly of his past that occurred 40 years ago. But perhaps putting it in his 'personal' section is where it should be noted. Allowing it in the 'headline' like this is an intentional 'HIT JOB' with the sole purpose of damaging his reputation. Pantress (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose there will be a level of bias in everything and that is why there is bias here. The bias originates with the references that are considered trustworthy sources. Almost every source will be inherently biased so we can only use the sources and do our best based off of them. But what we can do here is prevent Wikipedia-born bias. I would consider putting the addictions in his career section as such. Therefore I agree with this idea to move them for the purpose of both neutral point of view and biography of living persons. Logawinner (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutral tone does not mean that the subject is presented in a positive light, but that the writing does not use value-laden language. There are many articles about criminals and truly evil politicians, such as dictators, that are written dispassionately without emotive language. Hitler for example was a mass murderer, racist, conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer who believed in quack medicine, yet his article uses none of these terms.

Opponents of RFK Jr. editing this article should consider that displaying a biased tone in writing about him makes readers question the reliability of the article. It's like listening to a Fox News Channel talk show host. If you agree with him or her, you like the tone because it authenticates what you already believe. But if you don't, then it turns you off. Ironically, by coming on too strong, the article actually helps RFK Jr.'s campaign. TFD (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• However, the problem that many visitors to this page seem to have is that Kennedy is described as an "anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist", they believe these descriptors aren't "fair" (or even that they're false, which is not true). Saying these things is not "value-laden" - being "value-laden" would be using descriptors that can be disputed. But these things are simply facts. This isn't an edge case - Kennedy and his organisations deliberately spread disinformation, as well as misinformation - they know these things are false. Incidentally, this is coming from someone who isn't even American and therefore couldn't care less how Kennedy does in the election. There may be "opponents" editing, but I would like to see evidence of that. Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's fair and accurate to describe Osama bin Laden as a terrorist, but per Wikipedia policy of neutral tone he is not described that way because it is a value laden term. That doesn't mean the article condones his actions or that readers will be any less informed.

  Incidentally, would you or other editors vote for a "anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist?" Or do you think it would be a good thing or at least not a bad thing for someone like that to control the world's most powerful army and economy? TFD (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  What sort of reasoning is that? We cannot follow what the reliable sources say about Kennedy because of Osama and Hitler and... because if people do not know he is an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist if the Wikipedia article does not tell them that, they may vote for him? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• That's ... slightly bizarre reasoning. I think you need to realise that some US voters would vote for Kennedy because he pushes views that they agree with. It is not the job of Wikipedia to suggest that, merely to point out whether (per reliable sources) those views are based in reality or not. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not say, "We cannot follow what the reliable sources say about Kennedy because of Osama and Hitler," I said that we do not violate neutral tone for people worse than Kennedy. I would be appreciative if you would not interject misleading ripostes that do nothing to further the conversation.

As you are aware, the vast majority of reliable sources do not label RFK Jr., they merely describe his statements and positions. That's because mainstream media, unless they have a stated editorial bias, try to avoid the appearance of bias. The same btw is also true of reputable encyclopedias and university textbooks.

I agree that the article should point out RFK Jr.'s views. But you can do that without using judgmental labels for the subject of the article. BTW not everyone who supports RFK Jr. support him because of his views, some see him as the lesser of three evils. If they come across an article written in an obviously biased tone, they may discount what it says. I feel the same way when I come across any polemical writing, unless I share the same beliefs as the writer. How likely are you to be persuaded by an article in the National Review for example? TFD (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

TFD, you're absolutely correct and have clearly articulated yourself and the issues with the article in its current form. It does not reflect the truth with the language used. 49.179.57.60 (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That was VERY on point. The Hitler example is just perfect. This article is clearly very biased, as it uses very aggressive labels and the admins claim that they come from reliable sources. Yet, Adolf Hitler which was kind of worse has a neutral page. 2601:19E:427C:3CD0:CCD8:805F:9CC9:4107 (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

References

You keep going on those weird tangents. As if it were our goal to influence the votes of readers and we need to fantasize about how readers will react to what we write. It is our goal to follow what reliable sources say, regardless of whether readers like it or whether it makes them vote for whoever.

And neither the Wikipedia article about Hitler nor the one about anyone else is a reliable source or a good model for this one. Unlike AH and ObL, Kennedy has not started a war or had anyone killed (unless you count those who died of measles because their parents did not vaccinate them after they listened to him), so, unlike AH and ObL, the untruths he spreads are his most relevant aspect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I have not clearly explained myself because that is an inaccurate summary of my position.

This article, like all articles should present all the facts about the subject in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources and all the opinions published in reliable sources according to their prominence. At the same time the article should use the language typically used in reliable sources which avoid value laden classifications of people.

I chose the examples of other biographies to show that we can write about people worse than RFK Jr. without emotive and value-laden language.I don't understand how you draw the opposite conclusion, that neutral tone applies to murderers but not to people who have not directly killed anyone. Surely if we chose judgmental language, it would be for the worst people. TFD (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying that neutral tone applies to murderers but not to people who have not directly killed anyone. I am saying that both RFKJ as AH spread conspiracy theories but for AH, his murderous activities are more important, moving his conspiracy theories into the background and making his article a bad role model regarding that aspect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

But AH isn't referred to as a murderer either, nor is OBL. TFD (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably because reliable sources do not call them that. Still a weird tangent. We follow what the reliable sources say, and it is not our fault when they talk about RFKJ that way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of RFK Jr. and Political Affiliations

People's political views influence how they discuss RFK Jr. When someone refers to him as a "anti-vaxxer" and a "conspiracy theorist," it usually indicates that they have Democratic party influence. He may be viewed differently by Republicans, Libertarians, and certain independent left-wing sources.

Association with the Great Barrington Declaration

RFK Jr. is associated with a group of scientists and their allies who endorse the "Great Barrington Declaration" which advocated for an alternative response to the COVID epidemic. Members of this "Great Barrington" group contend that their voices have been silenced by deleted or shadow banned posts and accounts, while their detractors paint them as spreading misinformation on COVID-19 without participating in rational scientific discussion. This perspective is somewhat corroborated by primary documents from the Murthy vs. Missouri court case.

The scientists, who have been accused by Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Democratic administration, appear to have impressive credentials, including Ph.D. epidemiologists and policy experts who teach at prestigious universities. There is even a Nobel laureate among their supporters.

Multiple Perspectives on Scientific Discourse

We are not discussing climate science in this context. It hasn't been decades that pandemic response policy has been peer reviewed like climate science. Despite being embraced by people who disagree with the Biden administration, I don't see any evidence that this alternative viewpoint started as a position to create chaos for the administration at the time. Its scientific merits must be judged rather than its political merits.

I maintain neutrality on the disagreement. The debate on scientific viewpoints during COVID has been divisive. It is helpful to understand the context of RFK Jr.'s labeling and consider multiple perspectives. For example, the terms "spreader of COVID misinformation" that were used to characterize RFK Jr. are also used to characterize Dr. Jay Bhattachara of Stanford. Modern technology can produce a false consensus if opposing viewpoints are suppressed, erased, or ranked lower in search results.

RFK Jr.’s Beliefs and Public Perception

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is well-known for his beliefs in conspiracy theories, including the belief that the CIA was involved in his uncle's assassination. This belief is widely shared by a majority of Americans, including Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. He also believes that there is a revolving door between politics and lucrative corporate jobs that corrupts the system. Also, he claims that gain-of-function research was conducted on the COVID virus and that it escaped from the Wuhan Lab. These theories, while labeled as conspiracy theories, are discussed in various media outlets and may not be as fringe as is often implied.

Controversial Views on Vaccines

He has discussed a previous client who alleged that her son developed autism after receiving vaccinations. He has put forward the theory that vaccines could potentially be a factor in causing autism and should undergo further testing. As a result, some individuals have accused RFK Jr. of stating that "vaccines cause autism." It is possible that media outlets with a Democratic bias may potentially alter his statements to appear more extreme than intended.

Critique of Media Portrayal

In my opinion, RFK Jr. is incorrect about many things. However, the article heavily relies on Democratic party clichés and fails to address his actual inaccuracies. For example, his claim that the IDF has a one-to-one ratio of combatant to civilian casualties in Gaza contrasts with other sources reporting a 3 to 1 ratio. Democrats displeased with President Biden’s stance on Gaza will not find a more favorable option in Kennedy.

Concluding Thoughts

When discussing sensitive topics such as RFK Jr. and potential biases in algorithms that may align with mainstream Democratic viewpoints, it is important to conduct thorough research and avoid falling into common stereotypes. These algorithms have the ability to shape public opinion in a way that may not fully capture the diversity of perspectives. Therefore, it is crucial to approach these discussions with a critical mindset, seeking information from a variety of reputable sources to develop a well-informed understanding.

Wikipedia's guidelines emphasize the use of secondary reliable sources. However, it is vital to verify the accuracy and reliability of the information presented to ensure professional and ethical communication.

I have found more balanced discussions on these topics from reputable sources such as News Nation, The Hill Newspaper, Reason Magazine, and the BBC. Even certain CNN articles demonstrate a more neutral tone without the use of loaded terms. Mfrittman (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You spent a lot of words to (again) yell "It's biased!" Zaathras (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any point in discussing all the same useless "It's biaaaaased" BS again and again.

We should close that and wait for the next "awaken" user to point out that it is biaaased. vote for close.--Julius Senegal (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I vote for it to remain open. Mfrittman makes points that I fully agree with. There is a bias happening here and it needs to be resolved. Pantress (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

They didn't. AI did. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, you said that reliable sources don't refer to AH and OBL as murderers, while they refer to RFK Jr. as a conspiracy theorist. In fact, rs do refer to them as murderers but most don't, just a most rs don't refer to RFK Jr. as a conspiracy theorist. It depends on whether or not they are using a neutral tone. If you are trying to persuade people that AH, OBL and RFK Jr. are horrible people, then you use value-laden language. If you are writing an encyclopedic article, you don't. TFD (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not interested in your literary comparison attempts. Articles are different when their subjects are different, that's enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: "I'm not interested" and "that's enough" are hardly serious responses to the policy concerns raised by @TFD - you might as well just say "I just don't like it." An article does not need to constantly use value-laden language to plainly express facts about Kennedy's positions on vaccines, etc. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not need pings, I have a watchlist. And "the article X handles a different thing differently from how this article handles this thing" is not a "policy concern". --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV (specifically WP:IMPARTIAL) and WP:BLP (specifically WP:BLPSTYLE) are relevant policies here. See also WP:MOS (especially MOS:LABEL). This sounds like the crux of what TFD is referring to: "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

And before you say that the label is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject," I will quote what TFD said above in references to referring to Hitler, bin Laden, etc. as "murderers" and ask you to respond: "In fact, rs do refer to them as murderers but most don't, just a most rs don't refer to RFK Jr. as a conspiracy theorist." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Zaathras (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Comparisons to other articles are still not a policy concern. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I was listening to the "On Point" show on NPR in my car this morning, where they were discussing the legacy of censorship during the COVID pandemic. The show featured an interview with a scientist who had faced censorship and was accused of spreading misinformation because the results of her research did not align with the official narrative. They also revisited the "Great Barrington Declaration" in light of the negative impact of isolation on children during COVID. The theory of a Wuhan lab leak is no longer considered fringe.

Robert Kennedy Jr. has been labeled as a spreader of COVID misinformation and anti-vaxxer because of his support for the Great Barrington Declaration and his belief in the Wuhan lab leak theory. He has also been called a conspiracy theorist due to these beliefs. However, attitudes are now shifting towards a reevaluation of how individuals were treated during the pandemic. The criticism of Robert Kennedy Jr. stems mainly from his status as a COVID dissident. These viewpoints are currently being reassessed, even by mainstream media outlets. With changing attitudes, many are starting to see Robert Kennedy Jr. in a different light. To reflect the change in attitudes, this article should be updated. Mfrittman (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The article describes Kennedy's spread of COVID misinformation and his anti-vaccine views, but those have nothing to do with either the GBD or the lab leak theory. Speaking more generally, we should update the article based on new reliable sources, not on assertions of "changing attitudes". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Like other GBD dissidents, Kennedy is also involved in the Murthy vs. Missouri case with them. The labels of anti-vaxxers and spreaders of COVID misinformation are applied to Kennedy, Bhattacharya, Levitt, and all other GBD supporters. Mfrittman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It is closely related to Kennedy's support for the Great Barrington Declaration. Both Kennedy and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya have spoken about their association and agreement regarding COVID policies. The same labels were applied to anyone who supported the GBD. I have even read articles attempting to dismiss Nobel Prize winner Mike Levitt as a nut because he supported the GBD. "He’s a Stanford professor and a Nobel laureate. Critics say he was dangerously misleading on Covid." These articles are all the same and have the same critisms of anyone who supported the GBD.

https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/24/stanford-professor-and-nobel-laureate-critics-say-he-was-dangerously-misleading-on-covid/ Mfrittman (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we share enough common understanding of reality for further dialogue to be productive. Best of luck. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I may be mistaken in my belief that the name-calling directed towards Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is anti-GBD propaganda. It would be simple to prove me wrong. The Great Barrington Declaration was signed in October 2020, so if any of the name-calling towards Robert Kennedy Jr., such as "anti-vaxxer," "conspiracy theorist," or "spreader of dangerous COVID misinformation," occurred before the signing, I would be happy to admit my error. Mfrittman (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Reference #8 at the moment: Mnookin, Seth (January 11, 2017). "How Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Distorted Vaccine Science". Scientific American. Archived from the original on January 12, 2017. "For more than a decade, Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda completely unconnected to reality."

2017 was before 2020. Why do I have to do this for you? I am pretty sure that finding the reference took me less time than it took you to write the I may be mistaken in my belief contribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe you may have misunderstood my point, although I acknowledge that my language may not have been entirely clear. I was not suggesting that RFK Jr. had never faced criticism before the COVID pandemic. He has been involved in multiple legal cases against a variety of industries in the past, resulting in the targeting of individuals who seek to damage his reputation.

My point was that the specific language used to criticize him during the COVID period had changed, and this language is commonly associated with him and his allies who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration. The article you shared contains criticisms, but it does not label him as an "anti-vaxxer," for instance. Still, it was an easily misunderstood point, so you have proved that RFK jr. has been criticized for a long time.

I am not a medical expert myself, but I am aware that RFK Jr. has several advisors who specialize in medical issues. For example, when Nicole Shanahan joined his team, he had Dr. Bhattacharya, a medical policy expert from Stanford, brief her on medical policy. Therefore, I am unable to determine who is correct or incorrect when it comes to COVID policy, but it is probable that his viewpoints have some merit. Mfrittman (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

15 posts to this talk page and to this topic since May 17th, and nowhere else. If may be time to accept that your opinion has not swayed anyone, and to move on. Zaathras (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

For more than a decade, Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda completely unconnected to reality and calling him an anti-vaxxer are exactly the same thing. You were not, as you claimed, happy to admit [your] error. Instead, you are using excuses to avoid that.

The article you shared contains criticisms, but it does not label him as an "anti-vaxxer" Kennedy has been an antivaxxer for a long time, and the article has said so for a long time. Another easy thing you could have done yourself: Here is the last version of the article before October 2020. Search it for "vax". There are three sources that call him an antivaxxer in the title. This is the last version of 2019 (so, pre-COVID). It also contains those three sources. It also says he spreads conspiracy theories, and he is in the conspiracy theory category. In the current version, those three sources are still there, and there are about ten more because he has turned the antivaxx up to eleven since then.

It is OK that you do not want to admit your mistake, we are used to that. But can you at least stop misusing this page as a forum by pretending you would admit it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

As an observation of this discussion I should point out that this page does not call him an "anti-vaxxer" but an "anti-vaccine activist" which is consistent with sources that cover his career long before he became a political candidate. whether being "anti-vax" is a term of disparagement is beside the real point which is that reliable sources can consistently verify that his stance on vaccines is a significant part of his career and the accurate picture of his biography also comes from the fact that he is also known for his career as an environmental lawyer. The intro is supposed to summarize the contents of the article and both his legal career and anti-vaccine activism are major elements of his biography and notoriety. Jorahm (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This was written by AI. Was it ChatGPT or a different program? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Nature conservation activist

Hi, as regards this reversal of my edit by @Muboshgu: - how does my edit violate MOS:ROLEBIO? Sure, there is slightly more sources that describe him as "Robert+F.+Kennedy"+"anti-vaccine+activist" than "Robert+F.+Kennedy"+"environmental+activist" , but it is not a categorical difference - and since the latter is more significant across his entire career, I do not see why it should be excluded.

The current version gives the sense that although he has trained and practiced as an environmental lawyer, his primary political focus has been anti-vaccine disinformation, which is not really the case and in fact seems non-neutral, as if intended to minimize and discredit his work as a whole. --MASHAUNIX 09:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ROLEBIO says in part The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. RFK Jr is notable for his bloodlines, his environmental activism, and his antivaccine activism. Not for nature conservation. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

So are you saying playing a lead role in restoring the hudson river is not considered nature conservation? If not, could you please provide an example of what would fit that description so we can better understand your reversal of the edit? Concerned.citizen37 (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Lede weasel

I think this edit to the lede added weasel-words. Several reverts have ensued, so probably time to discuss on talk page. What do people think? -- M.boli (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's the actions of a lone edit-warrior who will probably just see a topic ban if they persist. Nothing to really discuss. Zaathras (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you. It's fairly well-described in reliable sources as being this rather than being "widely described" so I think it's grand as it is. Going to courtesy ping @Logawinner: as this concerns their version. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Did anything happened while I was gone? I did research on the general consensus and sources. The original version is objectively correct considering that. Logawinner (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep researching and you will discover the sky is generally considered as blue and the sun is widely described as rising in the east. That's the problem with your edit. -- M.boli (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense that there is a better way to go about this and a potentially better way to word it. I will just ask the appropriate people and let that decision be made. Logawinner (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that Logawinner may be canvassing users to come to the discussion, [1] and [2]. Zaathras (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Not surprising. A user hiding for months and active only in very specific, unrelated topics discovered his fan-love to RFK Jr.

Nothing to be done here, another useless waste of bytes "discussing" it. --Julius Senegal (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

After further research into the topic and reading of this article as suggested by the users I asked for guidance. It appears that this article errs on the side of fairness. Inherent bias will occur even on trusted sources but our job is not to interpret those sources but to present them in a proper manner free of our own biases. Some may question the location of certain information but it does not appear to be misallocated for the purpose of bias. This article is not vandalized as some seem to be claiming. The irony is that for the claimed purpose of eliminating bias it is being vandalized with their own biases. We use sources, not hunches or beliefs, this has come full circle from by time on the religious side of English Wikipedia. Thank you for this re-examination. Logawinner (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I will add my voice to people saying that "widely considered" is at best redundant and at worst starts to blur the line between knowledge and belief. He is in fact an advocate against vaccines and so in fact is his organization and these facts are all verifiable across reliable sources across time. We should not demote facts to "widely considered". Jorahm (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2024

The first sentence in this page refers to Kennedy as an “anti-vaccine activist” which is a simplification that I believe has misled many people on his beliefs and hurt his campaign recently. Kennedy supports the established vaccines, like for mumps and tetanus for example. He only wanted a little more research on the COVID vaccine. The phrase “anti-vaccine advocate” makes it seem like he is against many vaccines, and that it is a major part of his platform, but it’s not, and does not need to be mentioned in the first sentence or any phrased this way. So, what I am asking if that that phrase be removed. 24.171.1.89 (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: He has made false statements about the efficacy of the measles and tetanus vaccines too, actually. It is his platform. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Kennedy Is Not An "Anti-Vaxer" Nor a Conspiracy Theorist

Advise why he is labeled as an "Anti-Vaxer" and conspiracy theorist. 216.201.233.62 (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Because he is. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

See "Frequently asked questions" at the top of this page. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2024

The following sentence should be removed with no replacement: "Since 2005, Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine misinformation[6] and public health conspiracy theories,[7] including the scientifically disproven claim of a causal link between vaccines and autism. This sentence should be removed because it is not true. It states, "the scientifically disproven claim of a causal link between vaccines and autism." It has neither been proven, nor disproven. No one knows what causes autism, but it most likely is caused by a myriad of factors. No one knows what all of those factors are. You can say, 'I don't think the vaccines have any impact,' but that has not been scientifically proven. It could be a a very small factor, or none at all. BUT WE DO NOT KNOW. There not enough scientific evidence to support or deny the possibility of a casual relationship.23:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)23:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)~~ 2600:1702:2212:5000:A076:E94F:D97D:7A97 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the FAQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2024

I request that wikipedia add in nuance and 'other points of view' about RFK JR's stances, and not just blatantly say that he is a conspiracy theorist. He has also never called himself anti-vax, but rather pro-vaccine safety. A lot of the news agencies and organizations that claim RFK JR are this things, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry (source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440632/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising#:~:text=Under%20the%20Medicines%20Act%20of,consumer%20advertising%20of%20prescription%20medications.)

A large number of people believe that he should not be ostracized by bringing up certain facts that are often swept under the rug with the pretense that he is just crazy, when a lot of his points are true: 1) we are the only country on earth besides New Zealand that legally allows the pharmaceutical industry to advertise direct to consumer, because then they can control the narrative of the media, which they have done to assassinate RFK's character over the last several years. 2) Many of the public health agencies (CDC, FDA, NIH, etc.) are funded by the exact same regulatory agencies that are supposed to regulate them (with revolving doors between executives at these pharma companies and positions in the regulatory agencies), creating a clear conflict of interest that illustrates the corrupt merger between state and corporate power (https://www.pogo.org/investigations/fda-depends-on-industry-funding-money-comes-with-strings-attached#:~:text=This%20arrangement%20gives%20the%20pharmaceutical,form%20of%20higher%20drug%20prices.). 3) The fact that these same pharmaceutical companies have paid an absurd and quite frankly disheartening amount of criminal fines in the tens of billions (https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/industry/pharmaceuticals) for deceptive marketing practices, falsifying data, hurting patients, but yet, these same pharmaceutical companies have complete immunity from liability for vaccines. If they are all so safe and effective, why do they need unlimited immunity from liability. The argument according to NIH is that "A manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by a nondefective product due to its inherent or unavoidable dangerousness" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216813/) But yet, to question if big pharma is doing enough to make their vaccines safe, the same companies that have paid billions of dollars in criminal fines for making unsafe products for money at the expense of consumers, when they have absolutely zero liability for any damages, should make it appropriate that some questions be raised. But yet, to do so makes you an "anti-vaxer", even though, again, NIH's own reasoning is that they are "inherent or unavoidably dangerous".

These are just a few of the many real arguments as to why there is more nuance in this "conspiracy Theory" "Anti-Vax" label that wikipedia has simply stuck onto Kennedy, a presidential nominee. It appears bias and 100% in line with the mainstream media narrative. If I understand, Wikipedia is information for the people by the people, and the nuance of Kennedy's arguments about our system of public health should be acknowledged. 2600:1700:2DFB:EC10:C154:1F4F:AB3:DA84 (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)