Jump to content

Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Sentence is biased

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

From Wikipedia Neutral Point of View page:

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

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

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


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

See WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. It is not an opinion but a fact that most of what Kennedy says about vaccines is false. He supports the fraudulent ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield's long-refuted claim that vaccines cause autism, for example. Children die of preventable diseases because Kennedy misled their parents and the parents of children in their vicinity into not protecting them.
No, we will not pretend that facts are opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The intensity of your emotions and the loudness of your gavel as you pound it has no power to mske your opinions “fact”.
Others have a right to their opinion no less than yours. And while something may be proven as fact to your satisfaction, the contrary may be proven as “fact” to their satisfaction, and you will need to learn to cope with that, or not, as you wish.
But even if you, social media, mainstream media, schools, business, and government align to silence all opposing opinions with the weapons of Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler combined, many of us will still continue to assert our right to disagree with you.
Someone has politely requested that this posting be more honestly unbiased. Urbie56 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence is extremely biased and should be considerably added to. No reason to put Wikipedia's thumb on the scale in a national election by discrediting one of the candidates with a totally negative first sentence. At a minimum a few words should be added to balance what is now Wikipedia reputation bias. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
See WP:YWAB. You need to give an actual source-based reason. Just crying bias is not enough. Do you want us to sweep facts under the rug just because this guy wants to be president? What sort of reason is that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I suggested nothing of the sort, just that wording could be added to the "...best known for" list. He's known for his environmentalism too, and that could be added to the two negative connotations, and also best known as the son of RFK. Since they are used in the lead sentence, the words "best known for" are what should be balanced a bit. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I suggested nothing of the sort, just that wording could be added to the "...best known for" list. You suggested that where? I cannot find the words "best known for" on this Talk page before this. Also, Do you want us to is a question, since you did not say what you want.
No matter. The article does not say "best known for" either. It says "known for". So what are you suggesting? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
How about filling out the sentence to balance it: "...known for his work on environmental issues, promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories, and being the son of U.S. senator Robert F. Kennedy and a nephew of President John F. Kennedy." This would be accurate while at the same time not purposely filling in the blanks with only negativity. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Most of the references regarding Kennedy Jr's supposed anti vaccine propaganda have come from mainstream news articles which are inherently bias. Wikepedia articles should reference peer reviewed literature. This is especially important when stating as fact that vaccines do not cause autism or that they are completely safe. Robert Kennedy's book 'The Real Anthony Fauci' cites hundreds of peer reviewed articles which carry far more weight than news articles. T456GJKN (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on mainstream articles because they are known to be more reliable than wackadoodle conspiracist anti-science sources you seem to prefer. You will not change that.
Citing "peer reviewed articles" and quoting them out of context is a common stunt by pseudoscience proponents. They actually do not understand those articles, and you probably don't either. Instead of lawyers like Kennedy, Wikipedia prefers sources by scientists who quote peer reviewed articles, since they do understand them. See WP:SECONDARY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Never underestimate the intolerance of the Orwellian left for anything it can't deal with, its use of linguistic subterfuge to disguise that intolerance (as if consensus has or ever had anything to do with truth), its ad hominem jeers at those who don't tow the line, and its patent disrespect for the intelligence of ordinary people who can't, apparently, be trusted or allowed to make up their own minds about something controversial without having it thrust down their throats by these arrogant self-appointed arbiters of truth. And Wikipedia continues to allow these perverted attacks in what purports to be an encyclopedia, yet still expects me to give them an annual donation (as I was stupid enough to do in years past). 2001:8003:1C26:DC01:5484:4453:BC9A:A59C (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
You have a right to your opinion, but not a right to your own facts. And you do not have the right to make all Wikipedia articles agree with you.
This is not about what I say, it is what about reliable sources say. As always. Read them. Invoking Stalin and other uninvolved people is just a red herring. Mindlessly associating positive words like "honest" and "polite" with your own position are pretty transparent shenanigans and far from honest. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
My concerns are not with Mr. Kennedy's campaign nor with vaccines in general. As a person who was harmed by the medical establishment myself, and after more than a decade of reading original independent research I have come to the conclusion that mainstream medicine can and does harm people, and that the information is often already known or available which could prevent the harm.
Regarding vaccines, if it turns out that there is no causal link between childhood vaccines and autism (I don't think that the science is settled yet) [1]https://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/health/irpt-cdc-autism-vaccine-study/index.html) the seed and interest is still there to analyze all of the other conditions linked to vaccines, what's in them, and/or how they are administered. [2]https://www.rescuepost.com/files/age-of-autism-vaccination-outcomes-anthony-r.-mawson-brian-d.-ray-azad-r.-bhuiyan-binu-jacob.pdf If certain kinds of research efforts are continually dismissed as propaganda or conspiracy theories then the net effect is censorship of independent, unbiased research. I believe there's a cause for concern about what information we are given in an authoritarian manner, where differing scientific opinions are labeled as minsinformation or simply ignored.
I still stand by my inital point that the tone of the introductory sentence is not in line with Wiki standards of a neutral point of view. It's placement, for one, colors everything that follows. The terms "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories" are loaded with negative connotations. What source called Kennedy a conspiracy theorist? Who said that what Kennedy presents is propaganda? A writer from The Hill? Are they qualified to make that assessment? Is this a consensus of journalists that we are talking about? Please provide a qualified source where we have the benefit of coming for the orignal statement or we are back to The Sun calling Johnny Depp a wife-beater and then other journalists parroting and on and on, with no actual basis in fact.
Finally, please provide a neutral discussion of the relevant points. Perhaps you could use words like "controversial" and "advocates" which will allow you to at least summarize his points so that we aren't left with the impression that (as others have mentioned) that Kennedy believes that Paul McCartney was killed walking across Abbey Road.
Thank you for your consideration. 2806:290:C800:3542:85D5:114E:6DFD:97B1 (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)#
My concerns are not with Mr. Kennedy's campaign nor with vaccines in general. Then you are in the wrong place. This page is for improving the article on Kennedy.
I have come to the conclusion that mainstream medicine can and does harm people The content of the article should not depend on your personal adventures and conclusions but on reliable sources.
I don't think that the science is settled yet You are wrong. The evidence is very, very clear, and the only people who say otherwise are scientific ignoramuses like Kennedy and frauds like Wakefield.
  • The evidence for such a connection consists of one single study, meanwhile retracted because it was faked, with 12 patients handpicked by the faker, written and faked by someone who had a patent for a competetitor vaccine at the time, who was paid by an attorney who represented parents suing vaccine companies, and who failed to declare any conflict of interest.
  • The evidence against it is several large studies with thousands of patients, with no known problems.
What source called Kennedy a conspiracy theorist? Finally, a relevant question. The answer is that the lead summarizes the body of the article, and the sources are given in the body. Search for "conspiracy" and you will find the sources in the section "Autism and vaccines".
No, we will not handle a clearly false position as if it were still unclear. See WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The fact is, some people call him a conspiracy theorist. Just blanketly labeling him a conspiracy theorist is an opinion. If the article said "known for environmental activism, what many consider promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories" then it would be a fact. Just saying it's propaganda and conspiracy theories is an opinion. The very use of those two terms is an opinion from one side or the other. What if another article said "promoting pro-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories"? You would certainly consider that an opinion. By the way, I'm not anti-vax, and would consider myself 100% pro-vax, so I'm coming from a unbiased viewpoint on this subject (in my opinion of course.) Jimithing1980 (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
You either did not read WP:FALSEBALANCE, or did not understand it. "Many consider" is also WP:WEASEL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually, read the science on Children's Health Defense. There is a substantial body of evidence to support his claims, published in scientific journals, that you cannot just dismiss as 'opinion'. 2001:8003:ED39:AB01:5D2D:5B4B:E1EC:865 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
What is "the science on Children's Health Defense" supposed to be? Do you mean the long-refuted nonsense they spout on their website? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
His claim that vaccines are not safe for children is based on the assumption that ethylmercury is crossing the blood brain barrier and is not as safe as stated by pharma. Which one could argue is at least worthy of a lengthy (scientific) debate/discussion. This is also mentioned on the ethylmercury wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylmercury. Should the first line in the article really include the word 'propaganda' if the science on the issue he is raising has obviously not yet been settled? It seems harsh, especially since the words 'pro-vaccine propaganda' are nowhere to be found on wikipedia, it hardly seems objective. It seems politically motivated, in line with the typical 'anti science/conspiracy theorist' narrative being brought up against anybody who does not agree with the mainstream thoughts on the issue, which in fact is very anti-science in itself and should have no place on wikipedia. SporkehNL (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
How do you know that that question is not settled? Because RFK Jr. says so?
People are questioning that he is a propagandist because they have fallen for his propaganda. Instead of those people, we should keep relying on reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
After reading the arguments, I'm pretty sure this first paragraph is extremely biased. Unfortunately, there is no way to modify this without previous approval from a biased “editor”. But, it is important to say that your opinion is not a fact, nor your “sources of information”. 191.126.169.174 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure the best place to jump into this discussion, but I first off apologize for jumping in to edit the page without first checking here. I agree that the language, as I found it, was biased. For my part, I don't object to using "conspiracy theories", I just object to "propaganda". That is purely a subjective, pejorative term. We could just as easily say that he engages in environmental propaganda, but that would also make a deliberately negative connotation to it.
As per the discussion started by @Marcywinograd below, I support revising the lead to read:
"...is an American environmental lawyer known for waterway protection, opposition to vaccines and COVID lockdowns, and conspiracy theories involving corporate profiteering during the COVID-19 pandemic and false/disputed/fringe claims that vaccines cause autism..[2][3][4]. Kennedy Jr. is the son of U.S. senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy, both of whom were assassinated during Robert F. Kennedy's youth." ~~ KPalicz (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I reinstated the last instance of "propaganda" you deleted because the word is explicitly in the source. You are whitewashing the article because of WP:IDLI. Stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Fully support your suggestion for removal 66.198.209.98 (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
To Wikipedia’s Response:
In the rules and regulations, Wikipedia states that they require that sources are reliable and cited correctly. This page has 300 references, all of which are media outlets, news, magazines and newspapers. There are statements that were allowed to be on this page that are subjective and biased, not factual. Your response makes no sense. Personal remarks made by a person in the media, does not qualify as “reliable” or as a “source.” Wikipedia promotes propaganda. 2601:645:902:5D40:4150:E728:BEE7:C74C (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "Wikipedia’s Response", your opinion on whether something is factual does not matter, and if you have better sources, bring them. That is what this page is for. Not for vague complaints. See WP:FORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, using the word “propaganda” is suggestive, not objective and within itself propagandistic. Especially when there’s a whole lot of people who wouldn’t consider his statements incorrect. Eliyahfeld (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree the statements are biased and should be changed or removed. Propaganda and conspiracy are words used to discredit individuals and need to be supported/cited by undeniable facts. The world was once believed to be flat, (some still think it is), smoking was healthy and this is no different. He could be right, he could be wrong and the only fact is nonody really knows for sure yet... words like challenges, disagrees or opposes traditional norms are more appropriate. 99.253.224.3 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
There's four sources for the claims he pushes anti-vaccine propaganda and another four for other health-related conspiracy theories. The wording is fine. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Those are not reliable sources. They are just a selection of random websites that agree with you. The only peer-review papers in the bunch are in rather obscure journals, three of them have the well-known doctor impersonators Mark R. Geier and David A. Geier as coauthors, and there are WP:PRIMARY issues. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
And yet, the article provides a Craig Foster, a psychology professor who studies pseudoscience, as an expert in what is and is not science. I see clear bias in the rest of the article under the Autism and vaccines heading, which reads like a hit-piece sourced with some dubious sources catering to a certain point of view. 2806:290:C800:41CC:A539:F61D:6FE8:B839 (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I feel like citing someone who has had their medical licence revoked for malpractice and falsehood would be a more major issue than the sources we use now. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
And does that invalidate the research and opinions of the co-authors? Malpractice applies to a medical practice, not to research.
I know I'm wasting my breath here, but before I leave just a parting observation if I may.
I find it interesting that just about every research scientist or physician that has spoken critically about vaccines already has a Wiki page where you have labeled them as perpetrators of either fraud or minsinformation, so no one can cite anyone because you have already discredited them to your own satisfaction.
Brian Hooker who reanalyzed CDC data
Andrew Wakefield
William Thompson CDC whistleblower
Dr. Robert Malone
Dr. Peter McCullough
The International Medical Council on Vaccination
And looking at the talk pages of the individuals it seems you have encountered these issues again and again for neutrality to avail. Very eye opening indeed. 2806:290:C800:71E7:EDD4:6D72:154:24F5 (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
It is not our fault that only frauds, ideologues, and ignorant laypeople make those claims.
If you disagree with the reliable sources we quote, go write publish reliable publications of your own, then we can quote those. Of course, the problem with this is that the publishers will check if what you write is actually true.
I know this is probably a novel thought for you, but you should start considering the possibility that you are on the wrong side here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The only "side" I was taking here was the against the willful suppression of dissenting viewpoints in health-related science, but when I tried to explain that, you told me I had no business being here. Do you actually expect me to believe that all of these people got together to perpetrate a scientific fraud? How very conspiratorial. You have deemed every scientist and physician critical of vaccines as "unreliable." Your bias is obvious and disconcerting. Wikipedia touts itself as being an authentic Encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. Perhaps the next time you talk about propaganda and conspiracy theories you might look inward.
Since you've gotten me more interested in this, I've done a little more searching around. It seems that I'm not the first to come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is a fraud. But once again, you are way ahead of me and have also described anything critical of Wikipedia as fraudulent and as promoting conspiracy theories. I'll leave the following quote from The Global Research Centre and link anyway, so others can judge the information for themselves:
Edit to add: Wikipedia will not let me include the link as this content/author/website has been blacklisted. This just keeps getting better and better...
"Despite Wikipedia’s failure to be accurate and neutral about subjects that have an immediate impact on the lives and well being of its users, it has been a successful tool for the deep state and special corporate interests. In similar ways it serves as a public relations operation for the drug industry just as the Hill and Knowlton PR firm did for the tobacco industry in the 1950s, except under the cloak of being an authentic encyclopedia. The Foundation has condoned it being used as a weapon to silence and lessen the impact of people such as Robert Kennedy Jr, Deepak Chopra, Craig Murray, John Pilger, Rupert Sheldrake and Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier by characterizing them in derogatory language."" 2806:290:C800:6BB9:D863:2F90:2E86:7846 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe, just maybe, it's been blacklisted because it's a bunch of conspiracy theories??? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 14:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
willful suppression of dissenting viewpoints It's not that. It is called quality control: including what the community of experts says, excluding what your crazy uncle says. You are on the side of those who want to include the crazy uncles, and your opponents are on the side of quality control. And that pro-crazy-uncle side is the side you should consider the possibility of being wrong.
Do you actually expect me to believe that all of these people got together to perpetrate a scientific fraud? Depending on who you mean by "all these people", probably no. William Thompson, for example, has been misinterpreted. Hooker is not competent for medicine, Wakefield is a fraud, Malone overemphasizes his own contributions, and so on. But all this is beside the point. Wikipedia articles are not based on the free-flowing opinions of people with random credentials but on sources which are reliable for the specific subject. On the subject of a vaccines-autism connection, those sources are peer-reviewed systematic reviews in top journals, summarizing high-quality peer-reviewed studies, and they are unanimous.
You have deemed every scientist and physician critical of vaccines as "unreliable." It is not my fault that all the competent ones agree on certain questions and that only incompetent ones make enough rookie mistakes to end up with the false conclusion.
Wikipedia will not let me include the link as this content/author/website has been blacklisted. Again, please consider the possibility that there is a good reason for taking this measure. You can even check what was the reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
"Global Research" is the site run by Michel Chossudovsky, a 9/11 conspiracist and Kremlin asset [3]. That particular complaint was coauthored by Gary Null, an HIV/AIDS denialist who has been advocating fake medicine since the heyday of laetrile. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes. Wikipedia, the famously user controlled website, is a tool for the deep state. I think I can tell why that site was blacklisted. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
These references are peer reviewed by professionals in this field. They are researchers and have PHDs and Doctorates. The references on this Wikipedia page are only from Fox News, The Hill and other news outlets. They are not facts. 2601:645:902:5D40:4150:E728:BEE7:C74C (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
It does not matter which papers the people who wrote something have hanging at their walls. It matters how well the outlets that publish it check whether the writers just in down unfounded opinions or actual science. Laypeople often mistakenly think that it is credentials that make something credible. That is naive. Read WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Are you seriously trying to push a "vaccines cause autism" viewpoint? As an autistic woman, I'm thoroughly disappointed and insulted, IP. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 14:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I suggest to stop discussing with people using utterly BS sources and fraudulent claims as shown above.
It is a prime example of pigeon chess. --Julius Senegal (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Julius Senegal. I hadn't seen any of these discussions. I thought the term "propaganda" sounded unencyclopaedic, and saw that it was only supported by one citation out of three (The Guardian), so I changed it to "beliefs". I'm fine with the revert, given the calibre and clear agenda of some of the others who wanted that term changed.
But please stick to WP:AGF, yeah? Practically half of my extended family are doctors, so it feels especially insulting for a total stranger to accuse me of being anti-vaccine. If I was, I'd have been whopped hard enough that I doubt I'd ever be able to use a computer again, or do much else. Fuckin hell. BRB, off to do some breathing exercises. Nothing personal. And thanks for pushing back on the people who really are trying to WP:CPOV. DFlhb (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
No hard feelings. We have mentioned it even in the "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" way above the discussion page (incl. the discussion link), as this is subject for many "questions" trying to avoid negative aspects of RFK Jr. Never wanted to insult u. --Julius Senegal (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
It's already forgotten; cheers mate. And sorry, I should have probably typed it and then deleted it without posting. Hadn't seen the FAQ either (big oops on my part). DFlhb (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Nope. If RS say it, we say it. Andre🚐 04:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
It is so stupid to start out this article claiming that RFJ,jr's positions are "propaganda" on vaccines. How can a different view just be labled such, unless you are going to admit that ALL big pharma vaccine advertisements are also PROPAGANDA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.246.207 (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

I want to change the photo of RFK to a more recent one, of him on the campaign trail. Catgiraffe (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Any such photo must be freely licensed. Are you aware of any such photo? Cullen328 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Marked as resolved for now - please reopen if an image is provided. Tollens (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions for revising the lead

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

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

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

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

Your wording is a bit too much on the opposite side of the non-neutral spectrum. "Opposition to vaccine mandates" isn't what he is doing, he's opposing vaccines entirely and is pushing false information such as the false claim that vaccines cause autism... which is propaganda. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree completely with @LilianaUwU. Although I guess "misinformation" would work, too. BTW, is he really known for environmental activism? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Looks back in 2008, he was mostly known for extreme beliefs, like, uh, believing in climate change. "Well-respected" though! But nowadays, it's definitely the vaccine stuff first and foremost. DFlhb (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I really like @Marcywinograd's rewrite. But you are right, he isn't just opposed to vaccine mandates, but vaccines themselves. I support using Marcy's language but support changing "opposition to vaccine mandates and COVID lockdowns, and conspiracy theories involving corporate profiteering during the COVID-19 pandemic." to "opposition to vaccines and COVID lockdowns, and conspiracy theories involving corporate profiteering during the COVID-19 pandemic and false/disputed/fringe claims that vaccines cause autism." KPalicz (talk) KPalicz (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with Marcywinograd's attempt for whitewashing RFK jr.
With his organization (Children's Health Defense) he is not just "against" vaccine mandates, he places lies and misinformation about vaccines at all. I am sorry to say but what RFK Jr. is doing is far beyond rational arguments. --Julius Senegal (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
he's repeatedly said that he is NOT anti-vaxx, only pro vaccine safety and against mandates. you can't say he's just an anti-vaxxer because he's not. 2001:8003:ED39:AB01:5D2D:5B4B:E1EC:865 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
All anti-vaxxers say that. He spreads untruths about vaccination that turns people away from it, making him an anti-vaxxer. That is what reliable sources say. Of course, he does not know (or does not admit) that his ignorant claims are false, that is why he does not know he is an anti-vaxxer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Applied to individuals, the word is only ever used as a smear. - Tzaquiel (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
If that is the case, you should go and convince the reliable sources the article is based on not to use the word. Come back when you have succeeded. See WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I also have some issues with the lead as written.
I agree the word "propaganda" has some negative connotations, although it is still an accurate description. For example, we could call the push for people to get vaccinated pro-vaccine propaganda and it would be accurate. Propaganda is aimed at advancing a particular idea, regardless of if the underlying idea is or is not true.
I agree with others that using the word "misinformation" would be a better reflection of the consensus opinion.
I also take some issue with the narrowness of the lead, which does not reflect the content of the rest of the article, which includes major sections about Kennedy's other activist efforts. My understanding is that wikipedia tries to avoid the recency fallacy?
I took a crack at rewriting it:
"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, activist, author, member of the Kennedy political family, and a 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate.
Kennedy has advocated for environmentalism, renewable energy, human rights, peace and free speech. He is well-known as an anti-vaccine activist, and has been criticized for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories."
I think using the language "has been criticized for..." maintains a more neutral voice while still pointing out the issues surrounding his involvement in the anti-vaccine movement. 71.236.144.204 (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree with this statement. Is Wikipedia taking political sides now in saying that RFKJr spread PROPAGANDA about vaccines? This is a terrible way to describe his views and is very misleading and one sided. I expect more from Wikipedia than this, and would hold you to a higher standard of truth. 2603:8000:9001:41C2:F977:406F:E1F5:13E6 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing political about RFKJ spreading propaganda. It's simply pseudoscience. Wikipedia is supposed to be one-sided when it comes to science vs. pseudoscience. Read WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. That is exactly the higher standard of truth that is needed. Your philosophy of "some say this, some say that" is appropriate only when there is actual uncertainty on the subject among experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Calling him a conspiracy theorist is absurd and an insult to a man who has made a real difference in our environment and trying to get mercury out of our vaccines. We can’t solve our problems without some risk. People are scared to say anything today for fear of being called crazy. It’s an insidious form of censorship. If I mention his name positively in NY Times comment sect I’m generally moderated out. It’s not ok. Costrow3100 (talk) 18:52, 22 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."

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)
    There is no point in a discussion with someone who thinks that "you're wrong about X, Y and Z" is uncivil. They will dismiss any reasoning against their position as "uncivil". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
    I'm having a hard time with that as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
    There was no incivility in either direction. Seemed a polite request to keep it that way.
    Doesn't justify ignoring the content of the substantive points made? Shall we WP:Focus on content? 208.127.72.121 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Let's use this section to discuss how we can reach a consensus on an appropriate lead that meets the guidelines for a biography of a living person. The lead is incomplete as it stands.
    Would anyone contend any of the following points to include in the summary/lead? Which ones & why?
    1. Full name: Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954)
    2. Is an American environmental lawyer
    3. An author
    4. A member of the Kennedy political family
    5. A 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate.
    6. Advocates for environmentalism, renewable energy, human rights, peace (i.e., anti-war) and free speech.
    7. Well-known as an anti-vaccine activist
    8. Criticized for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.
    Are the existing citations sufficient to support 7 & 8?
    -- Kalem014 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
    I don't have an issue with any of those facts. I think it misses the fact that Kennedy spreads anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories (thus leading to the criticism you mention). It's right up there with being RFK's son when it comes to sources of his notability (M.boli showed many sources showing so, I just collected a couple more) and we're cautioned against mentioning his family relationships in the first sentence per MOS:ROLEBIO. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
See my previous comment, where I surveyed the press coverage of his candidacy. Most of the reliable sources ID him as the anti-vaccine guy in the first or second sentences. Which isn't surprising considering that has literally been his job for the past decade.
JFK Jr. energetically flogs a raft of hooey, including AIDS denialism (HIV doesn't cause AIDS, infected people should stop taking their drugs), 5G opposition, Hunter Biden censorship, World Health Organization world-government conspiracy, you-name-it. Note that google searches get more hits on RFK Jr.'s anti-vax than environmental work. Regardless of his earlier history as an environmentalist, the lede should follow the lead of the reliable sources and immediately ID RFK Jr. as an anti-vaxer and misinformer. This article is unbalanced, giving insufficient prominence to his notability: producing a gusher of hooey. -- M.boli (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
If RFK Jr. was notable enough for an article before he became primarily known for anti-vaccine activism, then a good case can be made that overemphasizing his anti-vaccine stance is recentism. At the very least the tone of words like "propaganda" and "conspiracy theorist" are unencyclopedic when stated in wikivoice. Also, while it is true that there is not yet consensus for something other than the status quo, it's also clear that consensus does not favour the status quo. In addition to the above discussion, concerns about tone were raised below. It is not correct to state that only SPA and "fanboy" IP editors have expressed concern, as several longstanding editors such as myself and TFD have expressed concern as well. In any case, "who" is involved is not a reason to stonewall for the status quo, and it is especially inappropriate to declare an authority hierarchy based on how active particular users are, as Hemiauchenia does above. People are participating in this discussion in good faith, and there is not consensus for the status quo. Let's come to some sort of agreement that reflects everyone's concerns. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
If your reasoning If RFK Jr. was notable enough for an article before were valid - his anti-science activities go back almost 20 years, which is not recent - we would have to severely cut down the POTUS part of the Donald Trump article for the same reason, and do similar things in many other articles.
overemphasizing his anti-vaccine stance is recentism Overemphasizing is wrong by definition. The question is whether what the article does now is really "over"-emphasizing.
At the very least the tone of words like "propaganda" and "conspiracy theorist" are unencyclopedic when stated in wikivoice We have loads of RS that put it like that, and, as far as I know, not a single RS that contradicts those. Your tone reasoning is just a flavor of WP:IDLI.
have expressed concern as well Unless those concerns go beyond this flimsy attempt of reasoning, they do not matter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
John Wilkes Booth was a famous thespian. One of the few people who could tour the United States and headline shows everywhere. My understanding is he was able to tour and perform on both sides during the war. Pretty unusual! He is certainly enough of a famous thespian in his own right to merit a Wikipedia article.
And by the way some sources accused Booth of spreading propaganda for the South, of being part of a conspiracy, and murder. But "propagandist" and "conspiracy" are unencyclopedic loaded terms. And we can't say "murder" in Wikipedia voice because he was never convicted of murder in a court of law. Besides this is only one thing during the later part of his career.
Yes, that is sarcasm. The Wikipedia article properly describes both aspects of Booth's career and notability.
There is a reason that reliable sources ID John Wilkes Booth as the man who murdered Lincoln, and reliable sources ID RFK Jr. as an anti-vax propagandist. It isn't "recentism." -- M.boli (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I second this argument. Not only has RFK Jr.'s anti-vaccine stances defined his career for the past few decades, but they define his current political undertaking. And it is also well-documented that his anti-vaccine stances are plain pseudo-scientific propaganda. Therefore, any rendition of the lead of this article ought to state this concept first and foremost, since it is an integral part of understanding the notability of RFK Jr.. To do anything less would be misleading. Panian513 Panian513 15:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for approaching WP:Godwin's Law here, but I would ask this question using the most unambiguous example available - Should the lead for the Adolf Hitler entry mention the genocide of 6 million jews "first and foremost"? Because it does not, and it is a good article.
Have we "whitewashed" Hitler, by not making this the primary focus or even mentioning this in the lead's first sentence? 208.127.72.121 (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Your argument is a false equivalence. First and foremost, Hitler is a deceased historical figure, and RFK Jr. is a living person, and therefore there are different procedures on Wikipedia when it comes to long-deceased versus living persons. Second of all, the first sentence of the Hitler article mentions his longest career position - that being dictator of Germany. The longest career position of RFK Jr. is his vaccine denialism. So of course the first sentence of this article ought to mention his work in anti-vaccine advocacy. Panian513 Panian513 15:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The question of living vs. deceased when conveying what the person is notable for in the lead seems to be a distinction without a difference. The question was on the so-called "whitewashing" argument, which can be applied to the deceased no differently than to the living.
People can be highly notable for reasons that have nothing to do with duration. A person may attain fame and notoriety for the events of a single day for example. Even still if we were to follow the duration argument, RFK Jr. has longest been notable for being a member of the Kennedy political family. Articles for several other Kennedy's include this in their leads, why are we omitting here?
The main argument against the current lead is not around what it says, but what it doesn't say. 208.127.72.121 (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
You're right, we treat living individuals differently than deceased individuals. According to WP:BLPBALANCE, "Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." Biographies of dead persons are generally given more latitude than biographies of living persons in this regard. I don't see any reason why simply wording the terms "conspiracy theory" and "propaganda" outside of wikivoice, and simply as a reflection of what the sources say, is an unreasonable request per BLP policy. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
For additional clarity, why not just say: "Kennedy's views on vaccines have been characterized as propaganda and conspiracy theories"? I have yet to hear a convincing case that this would somehow be "whitewashing." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
This is what he does. This what reliable sources say he does. We don't write "The sun has been characterized as rising in the East." That would be malpractice. -- M.boli (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
News sources who rely predominantly upon pharma ad spending (COI) are in fact providing characterizations with regard to RFK Jr's beliefs and advocacy. These are not statements of fact, and they are infinitely less reliable than the reality, plainly observable to all of us, that the sun will rise in the east each day, as it has done each day for 4.5 billion years. False equivalence. 208.127.72.121 (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
That is the purpose of Big Pharma conspiracy theories: if you do not like what a source is saying and cannot be bothered to check the facts (or have checked them and found that they are against you), simply claim that the source is saying it because it has been bought by BIG PHARMA!!1!
Instantly discredits every reasoning on any subject, however sound and however right the source is. And of course the sort of trick you are using here is not valid.
BTW, WP:RS demands that we rule out sources known to be corrupt, and we do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
1) It is not "conspiracy theory" to identify sources with potential conflicts of interest. These sources should in fact, in their fiduciary duties to their shareholders, avoid biting the hand that does feed them:
"TV advertising spending in the United States accounts for 75% of the total ad spend"
[4]https://www.statista.com/statistics/953104/pharma-industry-tv-ad-spend-us/
"Pharmaceutical advertisers spent more than most other sectors, NBCU said, with an increase of nearly 40% in commitments (in 2022)."
[5]https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/nbcuniversal-ad-sales-grow-streaming-1235306951/
That said, this discussion demonstrates the ease with which one who identifies COI can be labeled or associated with "conspiracy theory" and dismissed, as is being done in the lead.
2) "Propaganda"/"Conspiracy theories" Authoritative? The main concern many are expressing on this page, is that editorial characterizations on a BLP are being presented as authoritative fact, as if they were equivalent to quote "the sun rising in the east", when they must be presented as what they are, characterizations:
"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." WP:NEWSORG 208.127.72.121 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
You did not need to repeat your bad reasoning. When somebody uses the sort of pseudo-argument you used, rejecting a source because it may theoretically be corrupt although there is no hint of evidence, it is already clear that their opinion is write-protected and that they cannot tell a good reason from a bad one.
Your reasoning is generally applicable to every subject and therefore worthless. Of course, you will repeat it again, but it will not help. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment on content, not on the contributor. Keep it constructive and without prejudgment.
I will leave the COI concerns aside, but they are certainly not "worthless" or there wouldn't be extensive guidelines on it and related considerations.
Any thoughts on #2? 208.127.72.121 (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Commenting on content was exactly what I did. The content was worthless crap as well as a duplicate, and I pointed that out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Good day Hob. Might be a good time for a quick refresher on WP:CIVIL and WP:Stonewalling guidelines.
I will restate my last question here, to help ensure you aren't missing, ignoring or deflecting:
Is the use of the terms "Propaganda" & "Conspiracy theories" authoritative?
The main concern many are expressing on this page, is that editorial characterizations on a BLP are being presented as authoritative fact, as if they were equivalent to quote "the sun rising in the east", when they must be presented as what they are, characterizations:
WP:NEWSORG says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." 208.127.72.121 (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
If you are trying to say that we use opinion pieces (Editorial commentary, analysis) as sources for facts, you need to point out which those supposed opinion pieces are. Vague insinuations are not enough.
Opinion pieces are marked as opinion pieces, so you cannot use your own judgement do determine whether something is an opinion piece. I checked the very first source, written by Seth Mnookin, and it is not an opinion piece, but that is as far as I am willing to do your work for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Whether online news sources sit neatly under an "Op-ed" column or not is besides the point in this day and age. The distinction has been completely blurred in online media.
The point remains, contestable assertions should not be provided as authoritative statements of fact in an encyclopedic entry, particularly for a BLP.
"Conspiracy theory is widely acknowledged to be a loaded term... Calling something a conspiracy theory (or someone a conspiracy theorist) is seen as an act of rhetorical violence, a way of dismissing reasonable suspicion as irrational paranoia."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.12285
As has been suggested repeatedly for months now (with good reason),
- We can say RFK Jr. "has been criticized for" spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.
- We can say RFK Jr. "is well-known as" an anti-vaccine activist.
We cannot make such authoritative statements without consideration to WP:WIKIVOICE, and we should be a bit more concerned for the disservice being done to WP by biographical content such as this. 208.127.72.121 (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The guy is literally called a conspiracy theorist in a variety of reliable sources. What's your contention, that nobody can be called a conspiracy theorist? What indicator would a conspiracy theorist need to meet before we could call then one?
  1. "RFK Jr. spews conspiracy theories"
  2. "...about his previous efforts to push conspiracy theories ..."
  3. "Conspiracy theorist and challenger for Democratic presidential nomination"
  4. "RFK Jr’s descent into conspiracy theories causing anguish for family and friends, report says"
  5. "Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has attracted criticism for his history of sharing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about vaccines."
CT55555(talk) 16:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Thx CT55555, but it is - as mentioned once - pigeon chess playing with JFK Jr. fanboys. It doesn't matter how many sources you provide. Their hero is sacrosanct. --Julius Senegal (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@Julius Senegal Another false attack, this seems to be a common theme in your replies. I have no dog in the race beyond the credibility of WP, and if anything my suggestion adds credibility to the claims. So, your POV-based opposition is quite ironic.
@CT55555 Missing the point. As many have clarified in previous replies, we call him anything if cited in a reliable source AND provided it is written in WP:WIKIVOICE. e.g., "has been criticized for", "is well-known as", etc. 208.127.72.121 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Just count the "new" users, the IPs or the users having forgotten their login credentials for some time. Why are you ignoring the facts? You can go now. --Julius Senegal (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Please NOBITING, focus on content. Any comments on the specific concerns raised regarding WIKIVOICE? 208.127.72.121 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Please WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:STICK, "newcomer". --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
this is why i will NEVER contribute financially to wikipedia 73.239.38.83 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

the first paragraph

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

"The science" counters RFK Jr's "conclusions". RFK Jr. is not a scientist. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Because The Guardian calls someone a conspiracy theorist hardly makes it so. MurMiles (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Experts for medical pseudoscience call him that: WP:SBM, for instance.
Also, "promoter of anti-science" and "anti-vaccine uber-crank":
  • Voices in the Vacuum
    • Politicians either don’t see medical disinformation as worth their time or become prominent promoters of anti-science like Robert Kennedy Jr., who is now running for the highest political office in the country.
  • The Pandemic As Spectacle
    • Joe Rogan, who recently gave a platform to anti-vaccine uber-crank Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
"Anti-vaxer" is more a common description though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Note that a key objective in writing encyclopedic ariticles is neutrality. One would therefore expect a different style from articles written to persuade people, wherever they are published. Take for example your source, "Is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. antivaccine? Judge him by his own words!" Such a title would be inappropriate in an encyclopedia. It's fine for writers of secondary sources to express opinions, not fine for us to do so.
You may think for example that spreading misinformation that will harm people is reprehensible. That's a value judgment and something encyclopedic articles should never say. They can only say that it is regarded as reprehensible.
When editors use terms such as fanboy and propaganda, they are expressing an opinion on RFK Jr. as a candidate. His supporters are unlikely to use those terms. It's not up to us to persuade people how to vote in the primaries. The best we can do is give them information in a dispassionate tone. TFD (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Well said. It should be impossible for a reader to discern the personal opinions of whoever wrote or edited an encyclopedia article. I think it's fair to say that's not the case with this article. I also think it's fair to say that many editors don't care and are actually delighted with having Wikipedia articles written with transparent biases. Miner Editor (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Hear, hear. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. As other editors have previously suggested: "Has been criticized for" spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. "Regarded as" an anti-vaccine activist. These or similar qualifiers should be inserted for proper WP:WIKIVOICE -- Kalem014 (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no disagreement within science that Kennedy is dangerously wrong. We should not water that fact down. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
None of this makes sense.
  • One would therefore expect So what? Are you arguing that we should not use a reliable source because you think it was written to persuade people? I could argue that the SBM articles are written to inform people. Anti-vax loons are not persuadable anyway, and the SBM writers know that, so I maintain that your claim that SBM is written to persuade people - if that is what you are claiming - is silly.
  • Such a title would be inappropriate in an encyclopedia That is probably the reason why it is not part of an encyclopedia.
  • not fine for us to do so Nobody wants the article to express their opinion. (I guess that is what you are opposing here.)
  • You may think for example [..] They can only say You are refuting a straw man. Nobody wants the article to say that something is reprehensible.
All this is just sophisms, evading the subject with lawyerish hot air. The people who agree with you have no reasoning to offer either. ("Hear, hear", what sort of argument is that?) I say we should use those reliable sources because the authors are very knowledgeable about the type of nonsense Kennedy espouses. Just because Kennedy is a lawyer, we do not have to use WP:WIKILAWYERING in decisions about the article about him. Parts of it are about scientific subjects, and we should use competent scientists as sources when we have them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree with @Hob Gadling. None of this makes any sense. Donald Trump has been criticized for expressing what has been characterized as misinformation regarding the 2020 election would be gross malpractice, not sober probity. Writing that way about RJK Jr. spreading wagon loads of horse manure wouldn't be wikivoice, it would be malpractice. Wikipedia is on the side of consensual reality. What RFK Jr. does is not. That's his choice. It has been the focus of his career for quite a while. And as responsible Wikipedians that is what to write. - M.boli (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

"He called for a peace agreement in Ukraine based on the Minsk Accords – in his view, the Donbas region should remain in Ukraine but also be given territorial autonomy and placed under the jurisdiction of the United Nations peacekeeping forces, while Aegis missile systems should be removed from the territory of Ukraine."

The Modern Diplomacy article is just an excerpt from his interview to Unherd (which is already cited in the article). There's no point in having two different references for the same content.

There are no Aegis missile systems in Ukraine. There are, however, in Romania and Poland, which is what he is referring to.

I'm also curious as to why this paragraph omits the other, more delusional claims he's made in the interview (such as that the Revolution of Dignity was a coup, or that Ukraine is singlehandedly responsible for the 14,000 civilian deaths during the war in Donbas, all of whom supposedly were Russians, as if not a single Ukrainian civilian died in the war). 93.72.49.123 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the one who wrote the lead for "Political Views" section, so that was coming from me.
I'm sorry about the mix-up regarding Aegis missiles, you're right that he referred to Poland and Romania instead.
Regarding other delusional claims, honestly it just seems that I either somehow missed them, or just forgot to actually include them in the lead. Either way, there was no malicious intent here. I will give the interview a closer look. Thanks! Brat Forelli (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok, added them now. Brat Forelli (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 Done Brat Forelli (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The current tally makes it seem unlikely that a consensus to merge the articles will emerge. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Changing wording to "stubby" from "stub" SecretName101 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
The content in the campaign article on the campaign itself is indeed short enough to be a stub. That article’s length is inflated by a section on political stances duplicative in scope of an existing section of Kennedy’s primary article. the content in this article indeed is essentially a stub SecretName101 (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
What a stub is is clearly defined at WP:STUB. It relates to length and completeness. I find the labelling of this article a stub to be at odds with that definition, but probably won't labour that point further here, I think people can read it and reach their own conclusions. CT55555(talk) 18:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and when you remove the section which duplicates the political stance section in his main article, and the support section duplicative of the endorsements page, this is indeed a true and blue stub. Very little info other than “Kennedy has a campaign” SecretName101 (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Absent massive amounts of early significant coverage of the campaign itself, I'm likely to support the same for all campaign articles. When merging, the lengthy content cited only to the Twitter conversation does not need to come over. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Merging at this stage is inconsistent with other declared candidates who are returning comparable or even lower numbers in the polls relative to party front runners (see Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign). Moreover, coverage of RFKJ's campaign has increased significantly in just the last week, suggesting a trend in that direction. -- Kalem014 (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
“Suggesting a trend” is a WP:crystal ball statement. And the first part is a WP:Otherstuff rationale. In an of itself, there is not enough notable/substantial aspects or implications unique to Kennedy’s campaign for it to yet require its own article separate from Kennedy’s primary article. SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I refer to prior vs. current coverage, to suggest the current trend, which is not WP:CrystalBall. Other editors support on questions around whether coverage has been "significant" enough. I merely highlight the fact that coverage has demonstrably gained significance in recent days/weeks.
Also, if Michael Bennet 2020 presidential campaign, John Hickenlooper 2020 presidential campaign, and Tim Ryan 2020 presidential campaign are not deemed WP:OtherStuff in supporting deletion, then similarly Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign should not be deemed other stuff in opposition. Otherwise, all the aforementioned articles can be disregarded. Thanks! -- Kalem014 (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Ron DeSantis is an improper article to suggest is wholly parallel. a look alone at that article would tell you there is far more substantive and notable information about that campaign than Kennedy’s. That is why it is a unhelpful OtherStuff argument SecretName101 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I think WP:CRYSTAL precludes article content. I don't think it precludes making logical arguments about the future in talk page discussion. CT55555(talk) 18:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Crystal ball is also against creating an article WP:toosoon on speculation that an dedicated article may someday eventually be warranted SecretName101 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @HappyWanderer15 specificity on how you believe those grounds apply? SecretName101 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    I think it is inevitable that as a presidential candidate with 20% support and a large online following, this article will become a dumping ground for all manner of recent polls, events, comments, positions, etc. I witnessed the same happen with the Bernie Sanders article in 2016, and supported spinoff articles for both the campaign and his political positions for the same reason. It's important to keep the main article readable, and to leave the fine details elsewhere for those who would like a deeper dive. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose details about his campaign will overwhelm this article and create UNDUE emphasis on him as a political candidate.DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Is it normal for a politician in an active campaign to have a separate campaign article? I would think it is common, but just thought I would ask. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Jtbobwaysf If you look at 2020, not all of the Dem candidates (even some US Senators, congressmen, and governors) still have articles dedicated to their campaigns. Some were created WP:toosoon and subsequently merged per similar rationale.
Weak support per comments above. I see the logic here of toosoon and the article has too much about his political positions, looks more like an advert. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - keeping two articles with overlapping content synced is a PITA. If/when his campaign continues THEN create the article. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    Do you support merging all candidate campaign pages for a given election and just maintaining the main election and individual biographical pages? If not, how do we distinguish this campaign and not that campaign? What qualifies as a "continuing" campaign, and how to avoid bias toward the incumbent in any election? 208.127.72.121 (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
    @208.127.72.121 I think you are arguing a slippery slope. This is distinguished because its important content entirely overlaps with what can be reasonably contained in the main article. Some other campaign articles have a substantial enough amount of important content to warrant separation. SecretName101 (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, of course not, and I'm surprised anyone has supported this. All major American presidential candidates have campaign pages, that's pretty much a given, which include the history of the campaign, its supporters, and the other regular features of these pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
    As a precedent, Tulsi Gabbard has a merged bio with campaign info. Cocoablini (talk). 17:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Cocoablini quite a few other 2020 Dem primary candidates too. Including some governors, senators, and congressmen. SecretName101 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
    SecretName101, please consider withdrawing all of these good faith nominations. You've nominated some but not all 2024 U.S. presidential candidate's campaign pages, thus asking Wikipedians to sanction the appearance of pick-and-choose bias in Wikipedia's voice. You say your criteria is "stub", but this and other pages are well-sourced, not stubs, and are being edited daily. The nominations now give an appearance-of-bias towards pre-selected 2024 U.S. major party presidential candidates, so withdrawing seems a viable option. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Randy Kryn Not sure how you can see the appearance of bias in the fact I did not nominate every last candidate. Do you think DeSantis, Biden, and Trump articles should have been nominated as well, because those three articles have obvious rationale for independent articles as those campaigns cannot be summarized within the main article of those candidates.. I nominated those that I felt arguably do not warrant a solo article at this moment. SecretName101 (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's more than enough information to support a separate article. Any merge into his bio would require the otherwise unnecessary removal of a significant amount of prose currently contained in the Campaign article in order to prevent undue weight issues. Miner Editor (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support can be covered in Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and doesn't need a separate article. If Kennedy starts getting within 10-15 points of Biden in polls this discussion can be had again. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • The nomination fails because the Kennedy campaign page is not a stub as required by the nomination. In addition, under your criteria DeSantis should be merged as well. This rational shows that merging some of the campaign pages and not others provokes this kind of response, and puts undue weight requirments in order to participate in Wikipedia's 2024 campaign collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    Randy, not how things work.
    If a consensus arises to merge in the subsequent discussion, that doesn’t get undone by nitpicking a word in the original nominations rationale. SecretName101 (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
    And you are incorrect to think that DeSantis’ article can be as easily merged as this. DeSantis offers immensely more comprehensive coverage of information that is justified to be included on Wikipedia. It cannot be merged. This can. SecretName101 (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
...there, arguably, is the bias. Good faith bias but still present. And no, it's not nitpicking a word, "stub" was your rationale for merging all of the pages you've nominated. The Kennedy campaign article is not a stub, it has fully sourced material being regularly edited. It seems to have survived the merge and this discussion should be closed as no consensus to merge, but so should all the other campaign pages nominated as stubs which are not stubs. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
No. That was not my rationale, and you darn well know that if you actually read. My rationale is that this can be sufficiently summarized within a section, and a solo article is not yet warranted. That is indeed latching on to a nitpick about one word to delegitimize the entire statement.
And it is not bias. When there is indeed substantive differences between situations, treating them differently is not bias. You know that as well. SecretName101 (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Have read the nomination again to check if I was reading it correctly, and yes, telling editors that this page and other fully sourced and active articles are somehow stubs when they are not stubs is a central theme in the merge nominations. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is standard practice for many candidates - I'm not saying it's required, rather that's there's precedent. There are other candidacies where we don't have these pages. In any event, with all due respect to WP:CRYSTALBALL, it's obvious that there's going to be growing coverage of this candidacy - no crystal ball needed. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the campaign is an independently notable and well-sourced legal entity, and follows the precedents of numerous articles on similarly notable campaigns. It is also unfortunate to have multiple discussions on similar subjects likely to result in inconsistent outcomes. BD2412 T 20:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, suitable significant coverage, being met, merits an own article. Andre🚐 22:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Kennedy's campaign has received, and continues to draw, significant media coverage at a level that is above the norm for that of a "dark horse" candidate. Enough to merit a standalone article. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose I believe it's too early to consider a merge and it's only fair to consider merging once the primary season starts or when the campaign has been suspended. --2601:249:8E00:420:B93B:A3A7:4E32:53B2 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
    This is not about "fair" though. We don't need to create independent articles on every candidacy. This is a discussion as to whether this itself necessitates or justifies being spun off from its parent article. SecretName101 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
i agree Michael21107 (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
i agree Michael21107 (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
No 2607:FEA8:E9DF:2D00:C960:B2DF:5831:BDCD (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a major presidential campaign, with high polling numbers. Wherever one stands on the conspiracy theorist himself, who has little chance of actually defeating Biden, this article certainly has relevance. It has also received a massive amount of coverage on its own, especially for its connections to the political right. PickleG13 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

“Promoting anti-vaccine propaganda” the word propaganda here is incorrect as it is an opinion not a fact. The sentence should be changed to promoting anti-vaccine studies or anti-vaccine research. 89.148.44.192 (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Can you please provide any reliable source that calls anti-vaccine nonsense as "studies" or "research"? a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 13:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I love comments like this. You don't do "anti-x" research in science, that's fundamentally not how science works. The science is in, the facts are in, vaccines are safe and people that espouse falsehoods and misinformation, especially when they're running for president, should be labeled accordingly. 35.143.201.182 (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Read this Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
second that. the first paragraph is just absurdly biased and furthermore has no basis on fact. it only references some journalists/columnists who based there opinion on nothing scientific at all. just opinion. Shurbanm (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
"Their" opinion. The science is sound, and RFK Jr. is an anti-vaccine propagandist. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
This is entirely false. There is no evidence to suggest that RFK Jr. is "anti-vaccine". He has never claimed to be "anti-vaccine". More accurately, he has been critical of the safety of some vaccines. He has stated that he is "pro-safe vaccines". The actual science of whether said vaccines are safe is another issue, and is irrelevant to his osition. on vaccination overall ZephyrTurtle14 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, the truth literally does not matter, and editors here are very proud of upholding that standard, particularly on political articles. What matters is what "reliable sources" say is true; please review WP:RS Miner Editor (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
The usual reasoning is: following Kennedy's unrealistically stringent criteria for safety, there is not a single "safe vaccine" in existence or even theoretically possible, so, in practice, he is against all vaccines and therefore anti-vaccine. If you actually read the reliable sources, especially SBM, instead of just doubting what we quote, you could have found that yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Every live vaccine studied for all-cause morality has been shown to have very great positive effect, to an extent well beyond their positive effect on targeted diseases, so these would be vaccines that RFK would theoretically approve of. Because CDC does not seem to accept non-specific effects of vaccines shown by Aaby, Stabell Benn et al. as well as all other studies done other than one in Denmark, it greatly undersells the number of lives saved by live vaccines, which contributes to vaccine hesitancy.
Gorski just called RFK “evil” a couple of times in his latest blogpost. I know SBM is considered by editors in the RfC to be a RS but I dissent. Though Gorski often goes into detail which I think helps reliability;the great bias, extreme ad hominem and unevenness with the facts should render it an unreliable source (I realize this is not the place for a dispositive determination of whether it is a RS). JustinReilly (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
these would be vaccines that RFK would theoretically approve of Bad theory. RFK is totally clueless about science, so you cannot draw any conclusions from reality to him accepting it as reality.
extreme ad hominem Since we do not quote them, there is no problem.
unevenness with the facts How do you know? Sounds like WP:OR to me. When Gorski and some random Wikipedia user disagree, The Wikipedia prefers Gorski. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
He’s not “totally clueless about science.” He’s perhaps the world’s leading environmental lawyer. As he says, to successfully litigate hundreds of lawsuits that turn on science, you have to have a very solid understanding of the relevant science. How else would you successfully cross-examine the defendants’ scientists? He has a long successful track record and was universally acclaimed for decades as a champion of science and public health. JustinReilly (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
He’s not “totally clueless about science.” He’s perhaps the world’s leading environmental lawyer. When it comes to medicine, that guy accepts what obvious frauds like Wakefield say and rejects what real scientists say. He cannot tell an obviously fake study from a legitimate one. When it comes to environment, he probably does trust the scientists, but that does not mean he understands the science. I see no evidence that he does, only your opinion.
was universally acclaimed for decades as a champion of science and public health your opinion again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Look to what is unsound science (the definition of unsound science), that is what RFK Jr, not a trained scientist, is advocating. Look to what is propaganda (the defintion), that is what RFK Jr is expressing. So, keep the "propaganda" usage in the article.Dogru144 (talk)

"The definition of "propaganda" is "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause." (Merriam-Webster)[6] That could describe statements by any politician. The only reason to use it in this case and not for example for his opponent, Joe Biden, is that it is pejorative. We want readers to support Biden over Kennedy, which violates policy. TFD (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Oxford Languages give the definiton of The systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view. [7], which is accurate to what RFK Jr. does. He has a long history of putting out numerous misleading and false claims related to vaccines and other health issues, which are systematic disseminated by his Children's Health Defense organisation. Your argument that The only reason to use it in this case and not for example for his opponent, Joe Biden, is that it is pejorative. We want readers to support Biden over Kennedy, which violates policy is frankly preposterous. Joe Biden is not primarily notable for spreading misinformaton, for one thing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
We want readers to support Biden over Kennedy. Who is "we" and what is your evidence for that stunning assertion? The vast majority of Wikipedia readers are not eligible to vote in next year's U.S. presidential elections. Those that are can select among another Democrat, Marianne Williamson, or a plethora of Republican candidates, including the former president Donald Trump and former vice president Mike Pence, plus several current and former governors, a sitting U.S. Senator, a corporate executive and a media personality. And an abundance of minor candidates. The only interest of Wikipedia editors ought to be that the biographies of these various candidates are neutrally written and that the content is verifiable. We should neither attack nor whitewash any of these candidates, and most definitely should not "go easy" on this particular candidate, just because he has an impressive family pedigree. Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The only reason to use it in this case and not for example for his opponent, Joe Biden, is that it is pejorative. We want readers to support Biden over Kennedy, which violates policy does not appear to assume good faith on the part of other editors here and is just wrong. I don't care for the propaganda language either, but there is plenty of WP:RS discussing it and the folks advocating its inclusion don't appear to be acting in the specific bad faith you're implying here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Calling people who question the current wording "fanboys," disparaging their other contributions to Wikipedia, and reflexively accusing them of whitewashing any time they propose a change, whatever the grounds, doesn't assume good faith either. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
AGF is not a suicide pact. At a certain point, a person has made their views very clear, and there's no point further assuming good faith. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Why would you use the pejorative term fanboy instead of neutral terms such as fan or supporter? Doing so makes your own views very clear. Whatever our personal beliefs we should treat all candidates according to BLP policy. TFD (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove Biased Allegations

I request you remove the claim referring to "propaganda" in the first sentence. Whether the readers are "pro" or "anti" on this topic, why is the use of "propaganda" even relevant? Your readers can decide for themselves rather than have this platform slant the facts for them. 98.176.161.241 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we're discussing this above. Give it a read, come up to speed, and feel free to join us. Miner Editor (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
propaganda exists, and should be called such at all times, especially when it's as harmful as his is. "your readers can decide" is perhaps the stupidest idea for an encyclopedia when talking about factual things.   Countered |talk  10:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
"Propaganda" is defined as "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." If we must always call propaganda what it is, then we should be using the term in the Wikipedia articles for all politicians when describing the views they promote. There is no such thing as political campaign that does not employ propaganda in some capacity. However, this is not how the term is used in everyday discourse. Rather, it is normally used as a pejorative term, and as such is not encyclopedic. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Biased allegations? With multiple reliable sources confirming that he's pushing anti-vaccine propaganda? Sure, buddy, whatever you say. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 10:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I propose taking out the propaganda of stating his views are discredited and propaganda unless proven

to state blatantly his views on vaccines are all propaganda, there needs to be proof. And there seems to be a lot of proof on the other side. So this should be stated as a controversial subject, but not that it’s propaganda because I have not seen evidence to the contrary. And we all know big Pharma is now running the internet. 2601:249:8A81:2130:B084:EF0D:5156:CA68 (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

there needs to be proof There is proof. You just refuse to accept it as such because you believe big Pharma is now running the internet. Wikipedia is for less proof-proof people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't classify it as propaganda though. Stating views isn't what propaganda means. ZephyrTurtle14 (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Your reasoning is not relevant. We just repeat what the reliable sources say, and they say it is propaganda. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you point to any policy or guideline that says we should use the wording in rs? TFD (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
No, but I can point to WP:NOTCENSORED. That is what is going on here. Second-guessing reliable sources by saying there needs to be proof and That doesn't classify it as is an attempt to delete content because WP:IDLI. Reliable sources have a reason for writing what they write. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources have a reason for writing what they write. Yes, they do, and it is often because they will select the verbiage most appealing to their readership, often verbiage designed to generate clicks or gain/retain subscribers and we are not obliged to follow their lead. Encyclopedias are expected to have a different tone and purpose in their writing than their sources. Miner Editor (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
There are many reasons why an individual writer would choose a certain set of words. The sources that use the term "propaganda" for example are all trying to disparage RFK Jr. and his anti-vax views. Mainstream news source OTOH are merely trying to describe them and therefore eschew pejorative terminology, just as Wikipedia should. There are in fact policies and guidelines that explain how Wikipedia editors should choose words and phrases, specifically "Words to avoid" in the MOS and "Tone" for BLPs.
Reliable sources, with the exclusion of news reporting and other encyclopedias, usually have a POV. Peer reviewed papers, articles in Skeptic magazine and newspaper editorials all attempt to persuade readers. Encyclopedias however must sound detached.
An rs book about the BNP for example is called Bloody Nasty People. The description is accurate because members of the BNP have engaged in hate crimes and crimes of violence. But we would not use the wording of the source in an article. We would still however report what type of people they were. That's not censorship. That's using a neutral tone. TFD (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
There are in fact policies and guidelines that explain how Wikipedia editors should choose words and phrases And they do not say that any phrases are forbidden.
I want to stick to reliable sources. You want to distance yourself from reliable sources in general, insinuating that they are all not as reliable you want them to be because they "have a POV". This is just the usual vague handwaving lawyers do when they try to make witnesses appear less trustworthy, and it has no place on Wikipedia.
If you feel the need, take this to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. There you can argue that reliable sources should not be the arbiter of article content, but instead you should be. Or whatever else you are trying to say. Regarding BNP, you can go to Talk:BNP. Or instead to the article about whichever party you mean. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines and policies about the use of words and terms include:

  • Impartial tone: "articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."
  • Technical language: avoid using jargon that readers are unlikely to understand. If it cannot be avoided, explain the term in text rather than expecting readers to click on a link to an article that explains it.
  • 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."
  • Contentious labels: "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."

RS does not say articles should use the same phrasing as sources and in fact most sources and most if not all news sources do not use the polemical language you favor. RS says articles should report the facts in reliable sources. Why do you think we should not follow the language typically used in most reliable sources, including news media and other encyclopedias?

TFD (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Comparison of sources cited by the description in the lede
Source Neutral? Describes Kennedy as a producer or promoter of propaganda?
[8] Maybe? Polemic tone: Let’s hope Trump drops any idea of a vaccine panel headed by Kennedy. For more than a decade, Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda completely unconnected to reality. Unambiguous yes.
[9] WP:RSP Yes, series of anti-vaccine propaganda films produced or promoted by Kennedy, but not before opting to instead introduce him as an activist in the introduction.
[10] WP:RSP Attributes but does not explicitly endorse such a description: Dr. Richard Allen Williams, a cardiologist, professor of medicine at UCLA and founder of the Minority Health Institute, said Kennedy is leading “a propaganda movement,”. Does affirm that his originisation spreads conspiracy theories.
[11] Campaign group Kennedy, among other figures, and propaganda are mentioned many times throughout, but I can’t find any statement that Kennedy himself is a propagandist or has produced/promoted propaganda. He is instead described as an anti-vaxxer, and his orginisation seems to be described as advocates.

Personally I think rewriting to describe him as an activist or advocate would best reflect these sources. small jars tc 23:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh wait we already have something like this higher up the page... why are there so many sections about the same thing? Well at least this table focusses on "propaganda" and the other list on "conspiracy theories". small jars tc 23:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. See above.
Picking the statement articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. while ignoring the statement Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other on the same page further down, which obviously modifies it, is not serious reasoning. I am getting tired of this Gish gallop. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The issue is the choice of language not whether we should treat anti-vax positions as equally valid. It should be cold and rational, not emotional and polemical.
While articles must explain what is true and false, what experts believe and do not believe, they are not supposed to denigrate people or persuade readers what they should believe. TFD (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
True. Thus it is that reliable sources use more dispassionate terms like "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" and "propaganda." As opposed to the accurate metaphorical descriptions such as "gusher of manure " M.boli (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
We are not suggesting describing opposing viewpoints as being equal. We are simply saying that there is no need for the use of pejorative and polemical language in wikivoice in order to accurately present what the sources say. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Darn straight. And according to reliable sources -- largely composed of normative journalism grounded in consensual reality -- RFK Jr. peddles propaganda, disinformation, and conspiracy. If you think those are bad things take it up with himself. We can't fix that. M.boli (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Jr. is the 4th, not 5th Kennedy to run for president, the only others have been his father and two uncles. That is false information. Last like of the final paragraph under subsection “political aspirations”Conway jon (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Check out the footnote at the end of that line. The 5 includes Sargent Shriver Cannolis (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Shriver wasn’t a Kennedy though? His name is literally Sargent shriver Conway jon (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that's why our current wording is "This makes him the fifth member of his family" so as to not imply Shriver was born a Kennedy but rather married into the Kennedy Family. Cannolis (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

Delete, "who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and public health-related conspiracy theories". I have provided reasoning for this change in the talk section. I did see there is a new source that was provided, but I'm pretty busy this week. Hopefully I can find some time later this week or next to go through it. Cmsmith93 (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

agreed! 107.77.197.155 (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
No action This is already under discussion above and does not need yet another section. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
How do I get in touch with the editors? It looks like someone deleted my other comment here without even discussing it. Cmsmith93 (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
There is already a heap of sections about exactly that, and here are a few of them:
That is already three too many, and I only linked the first four. Why don't you go to one of those and read the existing reasoning there? If you have a new valid counter-argument, bring it. If not, go away.
How many such practically identical sections do you think there should be?
On top of that, there is also a FAQ at the top of this page, saying
  • Q: Why does the article say Kennedy promotes "conspiracy theories"?
  • A: Consensus is that multiple, independent, reliable sources describe Kennedy as an advocate and/or promoter of conspiracy theories.
Actually, any new section demanding the same change again should be deleted on sight. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The evidence in the first sentence is insubstantial for backing up the two claims...

Please do not just delete my comment/post without engaging with me. No editor's have engaged in discussion with my comments here. What is the point of having a Talk tab if editors aren't going to argue and counter argue?

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) 03:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You realize our talk pages are archived right? Not deleted? Recommend you review the archives, in particular Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_3#The_evidence_for_the_two_claims_in_the_first_sentence_are_too_weak., in which you made an identical post(just with better formatting) and multiple editors engaged in discussion with you. There is also an active RFC above. Cannolis (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Quoth Cmsmith93: No editor's have engaged in discussion with my comments here. What is the point of having a Talk tab if editors aren't going to argue and counter argue? And at the same time further above: someone deleted my other comment here without even discussing it. The archived discussion of @Cmsmith93's substantially identical earlier post shows 33 entries by 9 participants including many by @Cmsmith93. I doubt Cmsmith93's current complaint is in good faith. -- M.boli (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

False claims about Ukraine

Shouldn't this article point out how many of RFK Jr's claims about Ukraine are simply false? For example, he asserts that there were 14,000 civilians killed in Donbas prior to the Russian invasion, which is simply a flat-out lie.[12] RFK Jr compounds that lie by claiming the deaths were all Russian civilians. He also persistently and falsely claims that Aegis missile batteries in Europe contain Tomahawk nuclear missiles (which haven't even existed for the last 10 years).[13] — Red XIV (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Instead of looking for obscure sources for anti-RFK Jr material, the article should summarize what is covered in the body of reliable sources.
Your first source is an analysis by a former member of Russia's opposition in a Voice of America site. The other is Techarp, a Malaysian website with fewer than 10 employees covering IT. Without getting into whether or not either is a reliable source, coverage in these two publications fails to establish weight for inclusion.
Furthermore, per policy, analysis in rs is not itself considered reliable, unless written by an expert.
You should not accuse living persons of lying, which is a violation of BLP policy. Sometimes people are just mistaken. Also, your source does not say RFK Jr claimed the U.S. supplied Ukraine with nuclear weapons, just that they provided missiles that could carry them (which your source says they are no longer able to).
My advice is to remain patient and see if RFK Jr's credibility on Ukraine becomes an issue, as earlier his views on vaccines have. TFD (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Have re-removed the "civilian" part of that edit as the 14,000 figure is for all casualties. Cannolis (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign might benefit from some attention

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign might benefit from some attention. The lede said nothing about conspiracy-mongering, misinformation, and Children's Health Defense, merely mentioning "anti-vaccine activist". The article kind of downplays or buries much of his history. I added one sentence, with two references, to the lede, showing misinformation and conspiracy theories are a main part of his campaign. -- M.boli (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Update: 14 minutes later an editor removed the content. I opened a discussion. -- M.boli (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You are way out of line at accusing me of being a "fan". I am seeing a "piling on" going on regarding this individual and I am enforcing the balance our encyclopedia requires by policy. Miner Editor (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please fix the books listed in "Selected works"

I have User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js installed on my common.js page and every single one of the works listed (which are all cite book templates) is throwing those orange Harvard warnings - Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named.... I know there's a reason but can't remember the why at the moment so could someone - please - fix whatever is wrong? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I put |ref=none on all the {{cite book}} templates in that section of the text. I guess the template auto-generates an anchor so in-text citations can link to the book. But this is a simple list books, not references at the bottom with links pointing to them. -- M.boli (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Incredibly biased article.

Tendentious section not getting anywhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Drive-by IP/new users frequently complain that Wikipedia is "biased" when it doesn't fit their personal worldview. The only thing this generates is eyerolls from experienced users, because they never actually address the sourcing regarding the claims in the first place. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
To speak to this, I would not accuse Wikipedia as biased. But the beginning of this particular article is surprisingly negative and one-sided. Wikipedia is better than this. 136.32.100.222 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Alex Jones is pretty negative too, and I think the negativity is well earned in both cases. Kennedy's anti-vax advocacy has really eclipsed his signficance as an environmental lawyer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
"eclipsed his signficance as an environmental lawyer" He was not that significant as a lawyer anyway. If he was not famous for his support for pseudoscience, I doubt if he would qualify for a Wikipedia article. Dimadick (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Quite the exaggeration. His work on environmental issues was enough to get him almost named to Obama's cabinet as head of the EPA. The Waterkeeper Alliance is a very notable organization. It's fine not to like his vaccine activism, but it's totally wrong to say he would not otherwise be notable. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
His work quite arguably wasn't sufficient to warrant cabinet consideration. His name as a Kennedy family scion greatly helped that rumored consideration. Just like Hunter Biden wouldn't have likely been appointed VP of Amtrak if his dad was not a senator. SecretName101 (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Read the published articles he references. Stop getting upset with people’s opinions 67.213.245.74 (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Alex Jones has charges against him for spreading fake news. His is deserved; he broke the law. Buddyfire917 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
you might assume wikipedia would be better than this, but in doing so, you would unfortunately be about the same level of incorrect as if you were to refer to water as “dry”.. you are better off just not even bothering, because only those with approved opinions are allowed to force them upon others around here. Snarevox (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. It reads like it was written by the DNC as part of their campaign to discredit RFK Jr. This borders on election tampering. Mitchelloverton2020 (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
"Election tampering"? That's Trump's framing. It is nonsense. We reflect what WP:RS reflect. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree with this. Shouldn't there be a "this article may not be neutral" tag added to the top of the article? Opok2021 (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Agree. This article clearly violates NPOV. Instead presenting facts in an unbiased way and letting readers come to their own conclusion, the article heavy handily pushes readers to have a negative view of Mr. Kennedy from the first sentence. It reads like it is a hit piece published by a MSNBC or the Biden campaign. Allowing such bias really hurts the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source. Using negative opinion pieces from biased sources as a way to create a facade of "accurate reporting" is a very Orwellian level of deceit.
It's sad that the Admins here seem to prefer biased hit pieces just because they are in writing over a person's actual words. For example, Mr. Kennedy states here (as he has done in dozen of interviews) that he is fully vaccinated and not against vaccines, he just believes in science and vaccine safety (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odOtmYpjnDc). NewEditor101101001 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
If you read the article Kennedy is literally quoted as saying he's pro vaccine and had his children vaccinated. Cool, that still doesn't negate the fact he has gained notability for promoting unscientific and bullshit conspiracy theories about vaccines causing autism and that he's been named as one of the main players in the anti-vaccination movement. The fact we're not trying to stifle this information and provide some sort of false sense of balance doesn't mean we as editors are "biased" or whatever other labels you may throw about. His conspiracy theorist activities have received way more coverage and far outweigh anything else he has done and there is very little else to add to that sad state of affairs. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Your first sentence admits that RFK Jr. isn't antivaxx, but you're negating the facts based on slanderous opinions since they occur in writing? That's insanity!
So what a person actually says and promotes doesn't matter to wikipedia? All that matters is the "popular narrative" even if it is factually incorrect and slanderous? So if NBC, ABC, and the AP all print articles quoting BLM calling Gandhi a racist for not fighting hard enough for black rights in South Africa, you're say that's all that is needed to change the opening line of Gandhi's wikipedia page to "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948) was a racist and convicted criminal"? It's clear that some of you have an irrational dislike for RFK Jr., but you're clearly risking the credibility of wikipedia as a whole by continuing to push political propaganda. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Nah, my first statement says that this article actually includes RFK's denial, but when you constantly go around screaming from the rooftops about how vaccines are bad, you're going to be (rightfully) called an anti-vaccination activist regardless of whether you say "I'm not one of those guys!" If it's your word vs 20 reliable source's words, you're not going to win that battle. There's no "slanderous opinions" or "irrational dislike for RFK Jr." (I'm not even a resident of the U.S. so I have zero skin in the game), just statements backed up by a litany of reliable sources about what he has promoted. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
So it's RFK Jr.'s fault that people can't listen to what he's actually saying, so the slander is more important than his actual words? He's literally written books about what his goal is (vaccine safety), yet you prefer to rely on unscientific opinion pieces from far left sources?
It's sad to see wikipedia drift so far from it's original intent and devolve into a meaningless propaganda tool. I wonder if you guys will wake up one day and realize that you're repeating the same mistake the catholic church made by arresting Galileo for saying the earth revolves around the sun. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It's RFK Jr's fault that he's gone around spreading anti-vaccine conspiracy theories for the guts of 20 years, and as a result reliable sources have noted that he has done this. As for "unscientific" or "far left" or whatever else, if you're really going to turn around and describe NBC News and AP News (both of which are acknowledged by community consensus as reliable sources), let ALONE Scientific American, and a LITANY of medical journals sourced in the article as "unscientific" and "far left", then I fear this may be a waste of both of our time. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Of the sources used in the article, which ones would you characterize as far left? Squeakachu (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Squeakachu
Scientific American has a left bias. (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/scientific-american)
NBC News has a left bias. They are also owned by the same parent company that owns MSNBC that is far, far left and often pushes misinformation and DNC propaganda. (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/nbc-news-media-bias)
Center for Countering Digital Hate has a leftist bias. (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/center-countering-digital-hate-media-bias) (What is this source???)
AP has a leftist bias. (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-bias)
Notice a pattern?
How are "reliable sources" determined and is it ever updated to take into account changes and new biases? CNN today is very different than CNN 20 years ago. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The problem in this case is not the sources, it is the editors. Opok2021 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC) (Attack on editors stricken. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC))
This is inappropriate and off-topic. Focus on content, not on contributors. This is also not the place to discuss what sources are reliable and which are not. That is covered by WP:RSP. This is completely unproductive. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Worth noting AllSides describes it's Scientific American and Center for Counter Digital Hate ratings as "low or initial confidence." If your source says they have low confidence in their ratings it's not a good sign. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Why isn't a single center or right leaning source allowed to be used? Why are all the sources left to far left? Do you not realize how much you're damaging the credibility of wikipedia by being openly biased? NewEditor101101001 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
When you say "far-left" are you really suggesting that there are media sources in the United States that are biased towards putting the means of production in the ownership of workers? Communist news outlets? Scientific American and AP seem perhaps centrist. Maybe slightly left of the U.S. spectrum, but "far left" seems like not a credible claim. CT55555(talk) 17:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
To answer your questions: 1) Sources are discussed by editors at WP:RSN and frequently discussed sources are listed at WP:RSP. There are plenty of "center or right leaning sources" that can be cited in articles and frequently are. 2) Not all the sources are left, Associated Press is a reliable source and hardly a leftist newspaper. It's borderline absurd to object to it as a leftist paper. But if you're convinced it is a leftist paper, then I can only point you to RSP and RSN. 3) Have you stopped and considered that the one with the open bias here is the one calling every source they don't like "left to far left?" TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Your case hinges on Allsides, and per community consensus (WP:ALLSIDES), it is not deemed as a reliable source. To answer your question on how reliable sources are determined: they're reviewed by the community periodically (some every year or more frequently if my memory serves me correctly?) to ensure that they haven't slipped as a reliable source and to take into account changes. For what it's worth, CNN is also deemed as a reliable source by community consensus. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Ad Fonte, Media Bias Fact Check, and other sites have a similar rating for the sources listed above, which are the first 4 sources used in the article.
How are the sources "deemed" reliable? The fact that MSNBC and CNN are considered reliable and "Occupy Democrats" is allowed as a source but NY Post and Fox News aren't useable seems to to indicate that the left leaning to far left bias is one of the requirements for being deemed "reliable". How can wikipedia even a remote level of NPOV when only leftist biased sources are allowed?? NewEditor101101001 (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
We do not deem sources reliable by virtue of offwiki websites deciding on them. "Occupy Democrats" is allowed as a source - this is not correct. Occupy Democrats is listed as a deprecated source and you'll literally get a warning pop up on your screen if you try to add them. As I said earlier, sources are deemed reliable by community requests for comment, as demonstrated at WP:RSP. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ser!, perhaps your need to read the WP:RSP more closely -
"Occupy Democrats: In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source à la the Daily Mail. This does not mean it cannot ever be used on Wikipedia; it means it cannot be used as a reference for facts. It can still be used as a primary source for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like."
The far left "MSNBC: There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable."
The far left Atlantic (which seems to find a way to call everything from sleep to cleaning racist) "The Atlantic: The Atlantic is considered generally reliable."
Meanwhile:
"New York Post: There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics."
"Washington Examiner: Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source", but the left "Washington Post: Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable" with no mention of it's partisan bias.
Scanning the list, @TulsaPoliticsFan, name a few of these "acceptable" right wing sources?
This is absurd. The judgement of what's "reliable" seems to be based on political bias rather than an objective standard. Why even have a faux NPOV rule? If there really is no desire to have true neutrality, it seems like it would be better just to own up to the fact that Wikipedia is now a left wing media source. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This is so ridiculous, it's funny:
"Encyclopædia Britannica: There is no consensus on the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available."
The original inspiration for Wikipedia and the go to encyclopedia for decades isn't considers as reliable as left wing opinion articles. Some of you have to be objective enough to see how ridiculous this is. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTFORUM and also WP:BLUDGEON. CT55555(talk) 19:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The only one of the sources you used as examples that is more than "leans left" is the Center for Countering Digital Hate, and their confidence in that rating is low. AP in particular, the only source with a "high" confidence rating, is only barely outside of the center rating. Squeakachu (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It is only editorial bias that we worry about. If anyone can point to biased wordings that are from editors and not based on RS, then point it out. (Editors are supposed to document the biases in RS, so the content will reflect those biases.) Otherwise, good riddance with misusing the term "bias" around here. Such comments are nearly always unconstructive and will usually be deleted on sight, without comment. We DNFT. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is clearly biased to present a negative view of RFK. Although apparently reliable sources have been used, the information should be rewritten to be neutral. I assume if I rewrite the lead section and add a non NPOV tag at the top of the article, it will be reverted. Why? What are the reasons for the article being like this? We cannot be having political bias this bad, especially on an article that has had 2 million views in the past month. Opok2021 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Opok2021, I'm going to give you one chance, and then similar comments by you will be deleted on sight. Read my comment right above yours. We do not censor or whitewash articles or people here. We document what RS say. "Neutral" at Wikipedia does not mean "no point of view". It means remaing neutral to what RS say, and if they say one thing, no matter how biased, we are not supposed to neuter or neutralize what they say. RS universally document that RFK Jr is an anti-vaccinationist and conspiracy theorist, so we write that. We do not interpose our opinions and non-neutral POV on the subject. We faithfully report what RS say. If you can't live by those rules, then leave Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I believe there is editor bias. The negative information about RFK, relating to vaccines and conspiracy theories should be in the article, but not in the first part of the lead section. Within the first sentence of this article, the impression a reader gets is overly negative. In other major political articles, including Biden, Trump and Boris Johnson, the reader does not receive this impression. The first bias here is to do with a high concentration of negative information about RFK being in the lead section (and the first sentence). The second bias is the placement of the information being very early on in the article. What are the reasons for this? Opok2021 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Opok2021, the placement is already being discussed in the RfC in the next section. These are the types of things we can work with, and it can be done without attacking other editors or implying bad faith on their part. Such accusations are blockable offenses. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Valjean, no one is being attacked here. However, I cannot assume good faith for some of this article as it is clearly bias as stated above. Accusations of paid and bias editors cannot just be swept under the rug. Opok2021 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Opok2021, if you cannot assume good faith, then you should not be posting here. Unspecified accusations of paid editing are attacks on all editors. This is my final warning for everyone to cut out that nonsense before we go to the drama boards. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay. If an article is bias, when/when not is it bad faith? If the bias was deliberate, surely you can assume bad faith? If the bias isn't, you assume good faith. Opok2021 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The question of bias is irrelevant unless you can prove an editor biased the content based on their own opinion, not on what the RS say. There are myriad innocent ways that can happen, so accusations are not allowed without clear evidence they did it on purpose. RS provide the bias in this article. Absent evidence that will stand up, beyond the shadow of a doubt, on a drama board (our version of a court of law), you must always AGF and not even allow your mind to go anywhere near assuming bad faith. Such thinking makes it impossible for you to edit and discuss in a collaborative manner. That's a basic requirement here. Your accusations poison the well. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't accusing anyone of anything, just the article for being bias. I cannot confirm or prove there is political bias, but there is definitely a negative view on RFK. The bias here is where the negative information occurs (in the first sentence), and not RS. It's serious as it would affect the presidential campaign. I was asking how AGF worked as I didn't fully understand it. Hopefully this article gets sorted soon as it is taking a long time. Opok2021 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Above, you said The problem in this case is not the sources, it is the editors. Valjean struck your comment, you have not retracted it. You did not accuse an individual editor of anything, you accused all of us. In light of RFK Jrs newly published comments about COVID being "targeted" and designed to not impact Jews and the Chinese, I think it's clear that we're describing RFK Jr accurately and in line with RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The placement of the negative comments about RFK make the lead section overly negative to the reader. That's the bias the comment was referring to, as well as the editors who potentially made that bias. I wasn't saying it for certain, and not accusing everyone. It was a mistake, I was basically saying the article is bias and there is a potential political bias in the article. The sources are not the problem, it's the content, and editors add the content. I'm not sure I want to delete the comment I made as it was simply wrongly worded, so my bad. Again, I was not trying to accuse anyone, I was just pointing out editor bias. Opok2021 (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The question of placement is being discussed in the next section. Your comments belong there and must be sanitized of any allegations of bias. Wikipedia articles document facts and opinions found in RS, and they are often biased. That's okay. We are not supposed to get rid of or neuter that bias. Bias, when accurate, is a good thing. A bias that approves of bad behavior is not a good bias. Those who support Kennedy are trying to get Wikipedia to accept their own bad biases and use them here. We do not do that. We follow the biases found in RS and document them. You need to get that through your head and stop bitching about bias. You're really complaining about facts you don't like, not a bias, and just how much prominence those facts deserve in the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. RS are bias, and that's fine. In this case, though, I meant deliberate editor bias (unconfirmed), not RS bias. Opok2021 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
You are again alleging deliberate editor bias without any evidence thereof. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you're describing him accurately, but it is too negative. The first sentence especially needs to change. Opok2021 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
In what way is it too negative? That's how RS describe him. What change would you suggest that does not become censorship or whitewashing? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
It's too negative as it leaves the reader with a negative impression from the beginning of the article. My solution to this would be delete the part of the first sentence with the vaccines and conspiracy theories, keep it the same, and move it below to another paragraph in the lead section. Opok2021 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
@Valjean, hiding behind "a biased source is considered a RS, so therefore any extreme bias they push is absolutely okay because I agree with it" is a cowardly cop out. Is Wikipedia supposed to be a unbiased information source or an extension of the DNC? as @Jtbobwaysf and others have said, it's sadly starting to look like the latter. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
There is indeed increasing editor bias over the last decade or so which seems to increase every year. Many of us long term editors have left or are on the verge of leaving. Wikipedia is starting to be an echo-chamber of a certain type of editors, many of which I think are paid editors (either state operatives or paid through organizations). Even on this article we have a disclosed COI working for the Kennedy campaign, as we can see the importance of these articles to PR. For every one disclosed editor I guess there are ten undisclosed editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf, this can be discussed without attacking other editors or implying bad faith on their part. Such accusations are blockable offenses. You know better. Research also shows that Wikipedia's credibility immediately increases when editors like you leave the project, so I'm not too worried. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I almost raised this section at BLP/N this morning. Now I think it may need to go to AN/I instead. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't need the editors who won't AGF and keep on insinuating that editors are biased and or paid. Read that link I just posted. Research shows that a loss of such editors immediately increases Wikipedia's credibility, so the sooner they leave, the better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This is no attack on any specific editor in my statement. I am making a generalized statement about the average of editors in general and the way that has changed across all articles over a decade or more. The only specific editor I mentioned has disclosed his/her COI and is listed on this article page above, and that is obviously the correct approach, I laud that editors disclosure of their COI. That specific editor, my comments would actually be laudatory of that editor rather than derogatory. Your suggestion that I cannot make generalized comments about editing in general is curious. Is there a specific policy that you think bans me from making comments about the change in editors in general over ten years? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf, yes, the behavioral guideline is WP:AGF. Suggesting there's COI or undisclosed paid editing is assuming bad faith. Like my previous edit, consider this my final warning to cut out this behavior before this discussion is escalated. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Any objections to closing this section?

30 days of yes-it-is, no-it-isn't does not seem to be a productive discussion. Is there anything left to actually discuss here? Zaathras (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy, this thread needs to be hatted by someone uninvolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
None at all, and an involved editor can do it. Heck, I'll do it. We're just going in circles, and some editors are very fortunate they haven't been blocked yet as they've been repeatedly warned and given enough rope to hang themselves several times, and in spite of warnings they've done it. Sheesh! After this has been hatted, let's hope they leave their sins buried there and not repeat them elsewhere. If they do, block on sight. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Any interested editor can chime in at WP:ANI#Editor behavior at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Candidates in the 2024 United States presidential election

I could imagine we mention in the first sentence that this person is a candidate to be nominated by the Democratic Party? MariaMMIV (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ya think? (Gibbs logic - at least in the lead paragraph). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. My rearrangement of the lead (see next section) does this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

"Discussion in the press" for EPA Administrator

We should remove the idea that RFK Jr. was under consideration as Obama administration EPA Administrator. Right now the lede says There was discussion in the press that the first Obama administration was possibly considering him as a candidate for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.... (Emphasis not in the original). Having looked for sources, I now understand why this statement is so weaselly. I found little evidence RFK Jr. was ever a candidate for that nomination.

Currently two references are in this article:

  • The Politico article explains why such a nomination would be unlikely. It didn't say RJK Jr. was on the Obama transition team list, in effect this article is explaining why he wouldn't be. This article was published the three days after the election.
  • The Red, Green and Blue article citation copies a "shortlist of possible EPA candidates being discussed in the mainstream media" from a Bloomberg article published 1 day after election. (Bloomberg behind paywall, I can't see it.)

My search of news sources finds mostly articles from late 2008 saying that environmental activists were suggesting it. An example is this LA Times article, one week post-election, saying "Other candidates for the federal job, according to green groups, include Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ...."

No evidence he was on the Obama administration list of actual candidates being vetted for he post. This would be consistent with the two current citations, and thus the current weasel wording.

I think we should just drop it. That RJK Jr.'s name was bruited about for a job he was not in the running for is hardly encyclopedia-worthy -- M.boli (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Time magazine saw fit to mention it on June 14. Seems encyclopedic enough to me: "In 2009, the Obama Administration reportedly briefly considered him for an EPA appointment, but decided it would be too controversial" Miner Editor (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't that reinforce my point? 14 years later a throw-away line in a reported article says reportedly briefly considered. If news reporting showed RFK Jr. had been an actual candidate, the Time article would say was considered. -- M.boli (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
My point is, it's encyclopedic based on WP:WEIGHT, due to the recent coverage by reliable sources. Reliable sources bring it up with some regularity and there is no reason why we should not include it. Miner Editor (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Actually there is ample evidence from current coverage and coverage at the time. This Politico article, published two days earlier than the one cited, mentions it: "President-elect Barack Obama is strongly considering Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Environmental Protection Agency, a Cabinet post, Democratic officials told Politico." Probably by the time the article currently cited (which you link to) was released, it was well understood that Kennedy was being considered. Hence the odd wording you're objecting to. Feel free to update the citation in that section if you like, but it did indeed happen. He was indeed considered as head of the EPA. --SkotyWATC 19:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
So at the time of the election people are saying Obama is strongly considering. I guess there is ambiguity in the word considering. I still have seen no evidence that RFK Jr. got beyond the stage of his name was bruited about. -- M.boli (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Now you're being deliberately imprecise. If you read the whole first sentence of the source I provided the "people" who were saying this to Politico were Democratic party officials. Not just randos, but people who actually would have participated in the vetting of candidates for the job. --SkotyWATC 13:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
As I said, this plays off ambiguity in the word considering. That article still doesn't get past the name-was-bruited-about stage. It says RFK Jr.s name was "strongly" bruited about in Obama's circles.
Nevertheless, I don't see any point in arguing this further. I think including this in the Wikipedia article is a kind of puffery. But it is small, and the current well-hedged wording isn't inaccurate. -- M.boli (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree it is significant to RFK Jr, even though not significant to Obama, because when Obama was elected president, he had far greater notability than RFK Jr. and still does btw. TFD (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Relocate RFK Jr. considered for EPA administrator from the lede into body of article. Right now the lede contains the more full treatment:

  • There was discussion in the press that the first Obama administration was possibly considering him as a candidate for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, but his controversial statements and arrest for heroin possession in the 1980s made him unlikely to receive Senate confirmation.

Later in the article, in the political endorsements section, there is a briefer treatment:

  • After the election, he was named as a front-runner for Obama's EPA administrator.

The lede is supposed to summarize material selected from the article. Instead in this case a single sentence in the lede contains the entire treatment. I suggest moving this clearly brief and unimportant event out of the lede, add it into the political endorsements part. -- M.boli (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Chatter about a job he might potentially have been in the running for is hardly lede-worthy. XOR'easter (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Covid ethnically targeted to spare Jews and Chinese

RFK Jr. says COVID was ‘ethnically targeted’ to spare Jews. Yes, yes, WP:NYPOST, but for a change, this is not editorializing or sensationalizing. Plain 1:47 video at the link. This only dropped barely 90 mins ago, so other sources will likely pick it up throughout the day. Zaathras (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Sodding hell. Only sources with "no consensus for reliability" or worse (NYPOST, Daily Beast & National Review) seem to have picked it up so far but as you say, it'll be covered by the others soon no doubt. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Haaretz good enough? [14] AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Better wait 30 min. to see how mainstream U.S. media cover it. Wider coverage would indicate weight. TFD (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Both Daily Beast and National Review are good enough per WP:RSP. Just attribute them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, that whole trash conspiracy makes me feel ill. Anyways, we've also got The Jerusalem Post now too. SilverserenC 16:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Again, I would wait for major mainstream media. If they can wait to make sure they have the story accurate, so can we. National Review and the New York Post don't have that problem.Why does anyone read them anyway? TFD (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. We have WP:NODEADLINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
We've got The Times of Israel now too. SilverserenC 17:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd say given this is now a political candidate's BLP, the best source we have atm is Politico (also deemed reliable at WP:RSP). But I'm inclined to agree with TFD and Muboshgu that we can wait for now. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
If it's not reported in the New York Times, CNN and MSNBC, it didn't happen. TFD (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

A lot more coming in now.

Since they are also reporting on his response to the video being revealed, you can show his statement as well. I see no reason not to include all of this in two sentences or so in the appropriate section. SilverserenC 18:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Definitely enough RS for mention now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Clearly, yes. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to make sure there's broader information and context about his unfounded claims about origins of many diseases. See Rolling Stone: "During the discussion, Kennedy made several unfounded claims regarding the origins of infectious diseases and their relationships to vaccines. At one point, he baselessly asserted that vaccine research had been responsible for the creation of some of the deadliest diseases in human history, including HIV, the Spanish flu, and Lyme disease. " ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Rolling Stone is regarded as generally unreliable for politics post 2011 by community consensus at WP:RSP, and I can't find any source for these claims outside of that, the unreliable Raw Story, and the Daily Beast for which there's no consensus on reliability, so we may be as well waiting until a reliable source picks up on it. Though in the meantime, there's something to be said for expanding it based on articles like this. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Ser, "no consensus" does not mean we can't use it, so Daily Beast is okay, and Rolling Stone is too because this isn't politics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This absolutely involves politics and I am astounded that you could assert that it does not. It's actually in their "Politics" section for Pete's sake.Miner Editor (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I am familiar with what "no consensus" means and did not say we couldn't use the Daily Beast in my post. On the latter point, I would've understood this as politics given it pertains to someone currently running for political office. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 01:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I just see this as primarily a fringe/medical/COVID matter. That a politician is involved is a secondary matter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Rolling Stone is activist and cannot be considered a reliable source for such an incendiary and culturally divisive individual and subject. They have a long history of shady editorial practices and falsifications done with intend to persuade. Miner Editor (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Taibbi is no longer at Rolling Stone, so that is no longer a major problem. RS can be biased, and when their bias is toward mainstream POV and science, then that bias is good. That should indicate they are even more appropriate for us to use. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Rolling Stone has subject matter experts who write excellent content. Regardless, we should judge usage on a case-by-case basis, so is there any evidence they are bad in this situation? That they are siding with the mainstream and scientific POV makes them more reliable, not less. We are a mainstream encyclopedia, and any source (or editor) that deviates from that is not a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
They have a well-documented history of falsification when it suits their agenda, our article outlines them nicely, and a quick google of "Rolling stone integrity" might open your eyes. There are better sources. Peace out. Miner Editor (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this back and forth is helpful. Instead let's concentrate on WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. It's hard to argue this isn't a matter of politics. It's also hard to dispute it's also effectively a "medical or scientific claim". Valjean seems to have acknowledged it's a medical claim related above. For something as well covered as this on such a prominent personality, there's zero reason to try to argue that this is a very rare case when Rolling Stones is reliable on a matter of politics and science or medicine. Therefore Rolling Stones is out as a source per unanimous consensus. If Valjean feels that staff changes at Rolling Stones means it's now more reliable for politics and science or medicine again, they're welcome to start a discussion at WP:RSN although I'd strongly suggest they check recent discussions first and ensure their argument hasn't already been made and rejected. But until that happens, let's just stop wasting time here on a source already roundly rejected by the community for coverage on matters like this. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
P.S. For the politics issue, if it helps, let's assume this was 2022 and the Fox News consensus was only about politics and not science. Would you be willing to accept the argument, well this is only vague about politics so the consensus not to use Fox News for politics is irrelevant. If you wouldn't accept that argument, then don't accept it here either. If you would really accept the use of Fox News then, how about if it said something you felt was wrong and maybe about something Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders had said on something science related? Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Nil Einne, your reasoning is totally compelling, and I won't mention this anymore. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Thanks for the reality check. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
CNN have now covered it, so I've added it to the relevant COVID-19 section. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
As has The Washington Post. SilverserenC 00:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
And NBC News: "RFK Jr. pushes back on report he said Covid-19 was ethnically targeted to spare Jews" Notice how these news sources include reaction to the comments as well as RFK Jr's response. There is no deadline and it was worth waiting for good sources before adding information. TFD (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:MANDY. Zaathras (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Bingo. Zaathras, this is a very deceptive and common, if not universal, tactic used by anti-vaxxers. What they say cannot be trusted, including their denials. They claim they are for vaccine safety, but the thrust of all they do is to exaggerate rare risks, lie about the risk/benefit profile of vaccines, undermine trust in experts and scientists, and effectively turn people against using vaccines at all. Their "hesitation" is applied where it is not needed and causes easily preventable injury and death, mostly of children. Hell has a special corner for these people. Jesus said something about hanging a millstone around the necks of people who harm children and throwing them into the sea. Not a bad idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Regardless, professional ethics require journalists to ask people to respond to criticisms against them. TFD (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I would say MANDY especially applies when the denial is just that, a denial that the thing happened and nothing else or any extenuating evidence being presented. Somewhat worse even in this case when the denial in the face of video evidence is "I didn't say that", when the video in question clearly shows the person did say that. SilverserenC 15:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
It's just an essay and there is Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply, which contradicts it. In fact, In this case, NPOV policy applies, which requires coverage in the article if it's covered prominently in the media.
Unlike Astor, the range of replies RFK Jr. could have made were not binary. He could have said for example that the clip was faked or unfairly edited. Or he might have said that the virus had been deliberately engineered to target and exclude specific ethnicities. TFD (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The New York Times writeup [15] has this to say about RFK's response: Mr. Kennedy responded to The New York Post story with a defense that only deepened his conspiratorial theories. He wrote on Twitter that he "accurately pointed out" that the United States is "developing ethnically targeted bioweapons" — a point he made in his remarks captured on video, when he repeated Russian propaganda that the United States is collecting D.N.A. in Ukraine to target Russians with tailored bioweapons. Mr. Kennedy also linked to a scientific paper that he said showed the structure of the Covid-19 virus made Black and Caucasian people more susceptible, and "ethnic Chinese, Finns and Ashkenazi Jews" were less receptive. But the study he linked to, in July 2020, early in the pandemic and before effective treatments had emerged, made no reference to Chinese people as more receptive to the virus, nor did it speak of targeting the virus. It said one particular receptor for the virus appeared not to be present in Amish and Ashkenazi Jews. His conclusions were roundly dismissed by scientists. "Jewish or Chinese protease consensus sequences are not a thing in biochemistry, but they are in racism and antisemitism," said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and the Washington Post isn't exactly buying the denial. Kennedy added in his tweet that he “never implied that the ethnic effect was deliberately engineered,” though at the dinner, he floated that possibility directly, according to the video. [16] XOR'easter (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_4&oldid=1168146973"