Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Comment

Hi: the Spanish word “Recursos” is misspelled as “Recrsos” in the following award Robert Kennedy Jr. received:

“ 2017, Foro La Region Award for "La Proteccion de los Recrsos Naturales"[256” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.176.143 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- M.boli (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Polls

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/19/rfk-jr-campaign-poll-biden-voters/11690888002/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:CCF7:1410:791:32C0 (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The Suffolk poll has already been posted in the polling section of 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries. -Location (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Libelous material has been deleted

Libelous material has been deleted and replaced. It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is a Wikipedia policy to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. Libelous material is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation and could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences. Sources have been added to support that Mr. Kennedy is not "anti-vaccine" and to further explain the nuances of his position. S&E Media was retained by Team Kennedy to make these changes. Jordanbakernyc (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jordanbakernyc: If you are acting on Kennedy's behalf, or if he is your client, you must properly declare your conflict of interest per WP:PAID. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you've read Wikipedia:Libel since you've copy-and-pasted some material from it - see the additional instructions on that page:

If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please: Send an E-mail to [email protected] with details of the article and situation.

Dreamyshade (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

US NAVY and Puget Sound Case(s)

I tried to correct the following text, but the more I look into it, the more problematic it seems.

In 1993, he successfully represented the Suquamish and Duwamish Indian tribes in a lawsuit against the U.S. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington, to stop polluting Puget Sound.

Perhaps there was a case in 1993, but it had nothing to do with the USS Independence referenced in the article. That case took place in 2016-2017 and resolved in 2022 per this article. But I can't find any mention of RFK Jr in relationship to that case. He is not mentioned in this docket. There might be a connection to him in that Water Keeper Alliance may be an umbrella over the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, but I'm just assuming. Either way, until sources are found I have removed the text. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

Spell correct - Word 'obatined' to 'obtained' Doublea7 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

More of the same

The non-neutral tone of the out the gate lead "is an American environmental lawyer and author known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories.[2][3][4]" undermines the credibility of Wikipedia and should be revised to adopt a more neutral tone and avoid cherry-picking or focusing on one aspect of Kennedy Junior's life. I tried to change the lead twice, was reverted and sent a warning message about the importance of exercising caution in editing this page. Plus, from reading this first paragraph you'd never know Kennedy was running for President in 2024 in a Democratic primary against an incumbent Democratic president. I tried to include that, as well, and was reverted, so the reader would never know the guy was running for President until the end of this entry. Strange, indeed. This whole business of "known for" will change over time and should at least include "known for his environmental litigation and activism."

On another note, where do I object more formally to the use of "American" as a generic term for anyone born in the US? Honestly, the usage of the term "American" smacks of US exceptionalism and makes my skin crawl. What about those born in Mexico-Are they not American? Or those born in Brazil? Are they not American? Say US-that's specific; the other is disrespectful of the Global South and suggests those from the US are the only real Americans. Marcywinograd (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You put your text at the top (although English is written from top to bottom) at a place where it was not displayed. I corrected that.

undermines the credibility of Wikipedia No, it would undermine the credibility of Wikipedia if we swept those facts under the rug.

See American (word).

Next. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Seriously, we need to STOP calling people from the US "Americans," as though we are the only Americans. It's bigoted usage of the term "American" and Wikipedia should not perpetuate this bigotry and ethnocentrism. What about those in the Global South? Are they not also "American"? The reference to Kennedy as an "American" in the lead is racially insensitive. I changed it, but was reverted twice.Marcywinograd (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that the lead sentence is biased. Wikipedia has many such instances of bias, it simply is a reflection of which particular group has more time and energy to engage in edit wars :) Best wishes, JS (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This is bullshit. If antivaxers invested lots of time and energy, it would not help one bit because the facts are not on their side and therefore reliable sources (those sources who care for facts) are not on their side.

Instead of such empty rhetorics, bring sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say they are right. A lot depends on which side spends more time and energy on Wikipedia -- politically motivated POV pushers and lunatic charlatans or neutral editors trying to build an encyclopedia. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

"A lot", maybe. But they will definitely not win. Please do not encourage them. It will just make this more of a waste of time for everybody and lead to a locked article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is not about reliable sources. I am myself a pro-vaxer, I regard vaccines as the lesser evil. The issue here is where the information is put in the lede. Reliable sources do not tell us which information should be given more prominence. Best, JS (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually they do. WP:DUE determines what we give the most prominence in an article and that is an analysis based entirely on the weight given to various views by reliable sources. The most prominent view in the most reliable type of source available is what should be given the most weight in an article. Ergo, if someone's views on fringe issues is what is given the most attention in the reliable sources, that will be what we discuss in the lead. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:DUE that you cited. It says "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." These facts are not "minority views" about Robert Kennedy.

1) American environmental lawyer and author known for environmental activism

2) son of U.S. senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy

3) currently running in the Democratic primary for the 2024 US presidency

4) helped found the non-profit environmental group Waterkeeper Alliance

5) co-hosted Ring of Fire, a nationally syndicated radio program

6) written or edited ten books, including two New York Times bestsellers

7) promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories

As multiple reliable sources can be found for all of the above, the order in which the above are placed in the lede becomes subjective.

Also, "conspiracy theory" at this time is rather meaningless given that "reliable sources" group together ridiculous stuff like "clouds are chemicals sprayed with mind control chemicals" with plausible claims like "covid leaked from a lab" as "conspiracy theories".

I think I have said all I want to about this topic.

Best, JS (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Read again. that is an analysis based entirely on the weight given to various views by reliable sources. If you want those things to have more weight, you need to find more reliable sources for them.

And covid leaked from a lab is not plausible in the eyes of the scientific community, which is the only community that counts for questions like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for improving summary of RFK Jr's view on the assassination of his father

The Wikipedia paragraph reads:

"Kennedy does not believe Sirhan Sirhan was responsible for the assassination of his father, Robert F. Kennedy, and visited the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, San Diego, in December 2017 to meet Sirhan. After meeting Sirhan, he came to the conclusion there was a second gunman and gave his support for a reinvestigation of the assassination."

In his own words, RFK Jr reviewed the autopsy findings for his father at the behest of Paul Shrade who was standing next to RFK when he was assassinated and was also shot. RFK Jr also cites other evidence including discrepancies in the autopsy report of his father, videotape evidence, testimony from sources at the scene of his father's assassination, and other logistical and ballistics evidence as well as meeting with Sirhan Sirhan.

This is an excerpt (there's more in the article):

"...the thing that persuaded me, that first persuaded me was Paul Schrade, who was standing beside my father—he was the vice president of the UAW and a very close friend who had discovered Cesar Chavez and introduced him to my father. But he was also shot that night. Five or six years ago, he basically forced me to come over to his house and sit at his kitchen table and read Thomas Noguchi’s autopsy report. And once you read that, it’s impossible to believe that Sirhan had killed my father.

Because Sirhan fired two shots at my father. He had a revolver with eight shots in the chamber. And he fired two shots. One of them hit the door jamb behind my father and was later removed by the police. The other one hit Paul Schrade. And then his gun was turned. He was pounced on by ultimately six people. A big dog pile, who pinned him on a steam table, and forced the gun away from my father.

Rafer Johnson [who helped subdue Sirhan] talks about how this little man, he had superhuman strength. And they could not wrest the gun from his hand. And he fired off six more shots. All of those shots hit people. We know who they hit. One person got hit twice, through his clothing once, but the shots were going away from my father.

According to Noguchi’s autopsy, my father was killed by four shots fired from behind him.

Sirhan never got behind him. Sirhan was in front of him. And those shots were all contact shots. So they left carbon tattoos on his body, which means the barrel of the gun could never not have been more than an inch from his body, and in some cases were clearly touching his body. And they were fired upward, at upward angle, suggesting the person who fired them was holding the gun close to his body and concealing it while firing it upward.

The fatal shot was the one from behind his ear.

Sirhan never got that near. There were 77 eyewitnesses, and everybody placed Sirhan five feet in front of my father."

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/robert-f-kennedy-jr-interview-david-samuels 2806:290:C800:3650:2D0B:1ACB:2778:B2AE (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think his views on this are very relevant for this article. Maybe the relevant section of Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories could be expanded. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. However, if it remains mentioned at all, I think the mention should be be clear that he wasn't just basing his views just on visiting Sirhan Sirhan and dreaming up a "conspiracy theory." 2806:290:C800:B27:8C19:6B6D:35A4:7979 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

True, the current text is a bit misleading. What do you think of this?

Kennedy does not believe Sirhan Sirhan was responsible for the assassination of his father, Robert F. Kennedy. Based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, especially Paul Schrade who had been standing next to Kennedy and who was shot himself, as well as the autopsy findings he believes that there was a second gunman. He visited the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, San Diego, in December 2017 to meet Sirhan. He gave his support for a reinvestigation of the assassination and spoke out in support of parole for Sirhan.

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Much better. How about "Kennedy does not believe that Sirhan Sirhan fired the fatal shot that killed his father, Robert F. Kennedy."

Also, interesting to note, is that it appears that two forensic acoustic analysts questioned the official narrative of the RFK assassination (link below) over 15 years ago -- a decade before RFK Jr. made his controversial statements regarding Sirhan Sirhan. However RFK Jr. doesnt specifically mention it in the TabletMag interview, so I'm not sure it would be accurate to say that he based his views partially on this. Perhaps "others have questioned..." or "the results of an independent acoustic analysis...". Just thinking out loud.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/22/kennedy.assassination 2806:290:C800:1136:7D99:71BC:F318:AAE2 (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2023

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Kennedy has been criticized by his political opponents and commentators as being a leading proponent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in the United States. 208.169.88.164 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Improving autism and vaccines section

The "autism and vaccines" section can probably be improved and tightened significantly. I think it's important to emphasize that despite the long safety record of thimerosal, that vaccines don't cause autism, and that thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines and essentially all vaccines except for multi-dose flu vaccines, Kennedy continued to focus on this ingredient. Some of the sources also discuss Kennedy's other discredited beliefs, like attempts to blame vaccines for allergies. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

known for environmental activism

We can read that in the lead but is that still applicable? It seems like that this is past, so mid 80s and 90s, but not his focus anymore (sadly). --Julius Senegal (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Not being from the USA I may not be representative, but I was completely unaware that he was or is involved in environmental activism. I knew three things about him: that he is the son of RFK, that he believes in a conspiracy theory about his father's death and supports parole for Sirhan Sirhan, and that he is a major spreader of vaccine misinformation. Of course it is perfectly possible that these facts simply have gotten more attention outside the USA than his work in environmental activism. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Before he got into the anti-vax stuff, he was most known for environmental activism (other than being in the Kennedy family). My theory is that his lack of science background and beliefs led him to continue his "environmental activism" to beyond what the science supports. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

When did he earn his law degree?

Our article is pretty fuzzy on his early career. When did he obtain his JD at UVA, and his Master at PaceU? A quick Google search didn't yield anything; will keep looking. DFlhb (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Placement in the lead of presidential candidacy

@Avatar317: as far as I can tell, you've only ever made one post to this talk page and it was unrelated to this, so I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to. It doesn't make sense for the lead to mention a 2024 candidacy in the first paragraph, then jump back to 1984. While we do sometimes include current stuff in the first paragraph, that's usually when the first paragraph is very short (one sentence, two at most); otherwise, BLP leads tend to follow the chronology from what I've seen. DFlhb (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess I made the comment in my edit to the article here:[1]: "I agree with Marcywinograd from Talk that it would probably be good to mention this in the first paragraph. Yes this is new news, but it might be the reason that lots of people come and read this article. (and sorry, I usually don't like WP:EASTEREGG links but I don't know how to avoid that here.)"

Maybe you are more familiar with biographies than I, since I don't edit too many of them, but what be your suggestion for something of that high importance (his candidacy) which might be what would bring many readers to this page now. An analogy might be someone famous for many years, but now involved in some big scandal. It seems like it would be good for the reader not to have to read through the whole lead to make sure that they are reading about the right Kennedy if they wanted to read about the presidential candidate. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It's precisely for that reason that we don't put such things at the beginning of the lede. Our articles are not meant to trend toward recentism, but show an overview of the entire history of the subject. Silverseren^C 05:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be a lede within the lede, which makes no sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

(lead within a lead): But that is what we have right now in the first sentence. It INTRODUCES his environmental activities (which are covered in the second paragraph) and his anti-vax activities (covered in the third paragraph). Are you suggesting that we should remove the first sentence? ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Why should we cater to readers who don't even read the whole lede? ––FormalDude (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Because the point of Wikipedia is to provide readers with information. Why should anyone use Google or the internet or Wikipedia, when we can all go to a library and physically go through the card catalog to locate information and then find it in the stacks. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Someone can Google if Kennedy Jr. is running for President and Google will display the answer at the top. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and our articles are written for depth of information, not mere convenience. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thought about it some more. Presumably, if people are coming here due to the news about his presidential campaign, it means they've already heard about his campaign (right? so it doesn't need to be at the beginning). People are also frankly more likely to read the end of the lead that the "middle", which is basically where his candidacy used to be mentioned since the first paragraph was so long. DFlhb (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Your recent lead edits made it better, I like the "a member of the prominent Kennedy family," improvement, Thanks! I'll think more about the presidential candidate placement. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2023

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.

---

Please remove the reference to his promoting conspiracy theories. It’s included as if factual yet lacks specificity. That’s someone’s ad hominem attack. N456AB (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: His promotion of conspiracy theories is a fact. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources linked are sources that Wikipedia has (on numerous occasions) cited as not credible. The Guardian and The Hill(right-wing leanings.) The phrase "conspiracy' theory is loaded and should not appear as a summary headliner in Wikipedia. One could say, "Promotes anti-vaccine theories" or a "Vaccine critique" without the overloaded and biased tone. I would remove this sentence as it's clearly politically motivated and heavily biased to assist mainstream candidates Cocoablini (talk). 21:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian [2] and The Hill [3] are both listed as reliable on the Reliable sources list. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Not depicting antivaxers as the pseudoscientists and quacks they are would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I came to this page for information about a candidate for the US presidency, and read an ad hominem attack in the first sentence of the article. I do not trust this article’s veracity. A serious writer should address the problem and reorganize the article away from highlighting a biased claim using debatable terms such as “propaganda” and “conspiracy theories” in the first sentence. Looking elsewhere, I found the candidate, apart from his obvious family and personal connections to the White House, is a co-founder of one of the most important environmental organizations in the US. Perhaps this information, which is more ascertainably factual, informative, and unbiased, would be a more cogent way to begin the main article? Billyinthedarbies (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• It is not ad hominem (read that article to learn what the term actually means), it correctly depicts the position of this person relative to the science. He has no clue about science, and what he believes about vaccines is clearly wrong, as everybody who knows the first thing about it can tell you. That you do not want to accept that fact has no bearing on it being a fact. Check the reliable sources. We cannot sweep his anti-science positions under the rug just because his fans do not like them.
• If you have sources about that co-founder thing, bring them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  To me it just seems redundant given that all the source links pertain to anti-vaccine propaganda and nothing further. It is akin to saying “Greta Thunberg is an environmental activist known for promoting an immediate shift towards eco-friendly behaviors to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change and green living.” What is the point of restating the point twice when the sourcing doesn’t reflect a need for further elaboration while also using loaded, subjective language at that? It reads as an unsourced allegation that he believes Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing or something. Agentanaranjado (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I cannot see any redundancy in the article, or in the Greta Thunberg sentence you gave. The Kubrick thing is a total non sequitur that does not have any connection to this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  The source is the NIH recent admissions that Moderna & Pfizer vaccines are no longer in use. No agency (CDC, WHO, NIH) have completed any studies that result in factual results confirming or denying effectiveness of recommendations ir accuracy of data related to COVID illness or death. Bette Muddler (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Those "NIH recent admissions" are the source for the cofounder thing? And in which reliable source can they be found? Just as the others, you are not giving any sources, only vague handwaving. (BTW, "admissions" sounds as if the antivax kooks had been right about something, which they have not.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. That there is controversy regarding his views is acceptable for inclusion in the wikipedia article, but is suited for the body of the article. It would be more appropriate to stick with the format as used with other authors as is established across all other articles on wikipedia.

Instead of:

"is an American environmental lawyer, a member of the prominent Kennedy family, a 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate, and an author known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories."

it would be more appropriate to have something like this:

"is an American environmental lawyer, a member of the prominent Kennedy family, a 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate, and author of The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health and Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy."

Other authors typically have some of their most popular works listed right there in the first lines. As for what the critics say, whether they say it's propaganda or not, it's already established that that goes in the body of the article.

Alternatively, to be consistent with precedent, we could also put some non-positional matter of fact variation of:

"is an American environmental lawyer, a member of the prominent Kennedy family, a 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate, and an author known for his consumer health advocacy and focus on how corporations control American government."

Again, it's perfectly fine to characterize that consumer health advocacy, and whether it's based in facts based on what critics have said, but that belongs in the body as established in every other comparable wikipedia article. We have to be impartial and treat all articles the same. Frankly, t would be easier to match the precedent based on the suggestions provided here than to change every other article on wikipedia. 2600:6C44:117F:E000:2CBC:3B10:7941:145D (talk) 15:50, 5 May 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.

Wikipedia misinformed about RJK jr

how about being open to the possibility of a different perspective and stop labeling RJK Jr. as a spreader of misinformation and being anti-Vax. Is he really? The information on his Wikipedia page is clearly biased and non-objective. Keep an open mind. Do your own research and you will open yourself up to different perspectives and possibilities in what RJK Jr is sharing. 75.188.38.120 (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources say, and reliable sources describe him that way. Cullen328 (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

And of course the only ‘reliable’ sources out there are the ones that conform to your personal world view. 204.191.56.237 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! You can read more about which sources are considered to be reliable for Wikipedia purposes HERE. (If that doesn't work for you, you may want to find another internet forum.) Happy reading! -Location (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, that is false. Wikipedia is a top ten website worldwide, and is edited by people with a variety of ideologies. A wide range of reliable sources are acceptable. But we are not going to use a source that just paid $787.5 million to settle a defamation case, and we are not going to whitewash RFK Jr's antivax extremism. It is simply not going to happen. Cullen328 (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact you called it "antivac extremism" proves you shouldn't have a say in the matter as your bias is on clear display. Jimithing1980 (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you disqualify people you disagree with, using flimsy reasoning, proves you desperately need to learn how to reason soundly. RFK actually is an antivax extremist, and telling the truth does not disqualify people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, RFK Jr. is a consumer health advocate. That there is controversy regarding his views is acceptable for inclusion in the wikipedia article, but is more suited for the body of the article. It would be more appropriate to stick with the format as used with other authors as is established across all other articles on wikipedia.

Instead of:

"is an American environmental lawyer, a member of the prominent Kennedy family, a 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate, and an author known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories."

it would be more appropriate to have something like this:

"is an American environmental lawyer, a member of the prominent Kennedy family, a 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate, and author of The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health and Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy."

Other authors typically have some of their most popular works listed right there in the first lines. As for what the critics say, whether they say it's propaganda or not, it's already established that that goes in the body of the article.

Alternatively, to be consistent with precedent, we could also put some non-positional matter of fact variation of:

"is an American environmental lawyer, a member of the prominent Kennedy family, a 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate, and an author known for his consumer health advocacy and focus on how corporations control American government."

Again, it's perfectly fine to characterize that consumer health advocacy, and whether it's based in facts based on what critics have said, but that belongs in the body as established in every other comparable wikipedia article. 2600:6C44:117F:E000:2CBC:3B10:7941:145D (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

it would be more appropriate Why would it be more appropriate? You did not give a reason, just your opinion. Reliable sources call him an antivax propagandist. On Wikipedia, reliable sources count for more than your opinion.

And don't copy the same text into two sections. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate in the sense that criticism and characterizations like this go in the body of the article, as is the precedent with other people’s articles on Wikipedia. The top line information about the person/subject should be a much more basic description. For example, I gave you instances of the kind of formatting that is appropriate based on what is done - as close to a standard as we have on Wikipedia. I didn’t say information regarding his stance on vaccinations shouldn’t be included, but that it should go in the body because even fact based criticism/controversy always goes in the body. We are on the same page regarding the the sources of criticism being reliable. 2600:6C44:117F:E000:B5EC:5F4B:5BAC:3BC0 (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize the body. Since anti-vax propaganda is a large part of the body (because it is a large part of what the reliable sources say), it also belongs in the lede. If you know other articles where this is done differently, it should be changed in those articles, not here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, it seems that the position you are taking in these debates is that the categories "antivax extremist," "anti-vaxxer," etc. are adequate descriptors for a diverse set of ideas. This may be a way to simplify the conversation, but it is not true. One may be alarmed at the presence of mercury in some vaccine compounds without having an opinion about whether or not vaccines cause autism, and one may raise concerns about the profit motive in the healthcare industry without "promoting conspiracy theories." If the most substantial aspects of RFK's vaccine-related advocacy have been to draw attention to the presence of mercury in Thiomersal and to point out the close relationships between pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies, then it is a disservice to imply that he should be placed in the same category as someone who doubts the basic science of vaccination--yet this is what your rhetoric, and the lead sentence of the article as it is currently written, does. I agree with the proposal that these characterizations belong in the body of the article, not the lead. Achdell (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, RFK Jr. doesn't try to hide his anti-vaccine driven conspiracy agenda. He promotes himself as the go-to anti-vaxer. Just two years ago he wrote a book to popularize his extreme wack-a-doodle anti-vaccination-related conspiracy theories. Even right-wing cultural critic Theodore Dalrymple was moved to write "Kennedy's book has all the objectivity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". RFK Jr. is the founder and chair of Children's Health Defense "activist group mainly known for anti-vaccine propaganda and has been identified as one of the main sources of misinformation on vaccines." No matter RFK Jr.'s earlier accomplishments in life, this nearly two-decade gusher of hooey is nowadays his primary source of notability. -- M.boli (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not me who is taking that position, it is the reliable sources. All the new users and IPs who say the same thing on this page do not understand the same thing about Wikipedia. See WP:CIR. And none of them seems to be able to grasp the fact that if a Wikipedia article disagrees with their opinion, it is not necessarily the Wikipedia article that is wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand the sensitivity to this issue given everything we’ve been through these past few years. And I also want the criticism to have its place in the article, as it is significant to the person. However, it would be more in keeping with wiki article best practices in regard to how important people/authors are treated if non-neutral descriptors are used in the lede. For instance, instead of saying that he is an anti-vaccine propagandist in the lede, the neutral descriptor of “public health advocate” (which also encapsulates his environmental work) or alternatively to simply list a few of his most popular books (a very common approach in regard to authors on wiki). I think this approach addresses everyone’s concerns in terms of wanting to make sure we are being impartial in the lead, keeping to wiki standards, and setting the stage to appropriately frame the criticism/controversy in the body. 2600:6C44:117F:E000:B5C9:9CA4:9C74:A508 (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem with "public health advocate" is that every public health expert will disagree with applying the term to Kennedy. As an antivaxer, he is the exact opposite of a public health advocate. He is against certain public health measures because he believes long-refuted crazy stuff about them. He is an important part of an anti-science, anti-medicine subculture. In effect, he is pro-disease, pro-early-death, anti-health. In the fight between humans and diseases, he is on the other side. Calling him a public health advocate would be a bold-faced lie. And the important thing for Wikipedia is: you will have difficulties finding a reliable source calling him that. Reliable sources calling him an antivaxer are easy to find. What you call "best practices" is actually special pleading.

"Being impartial" is not what NPOV is about. Do we have to link WP:FALSEBALANCE and all the other relevant pages again? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not married to "public health advocate." You make a good point that public health experts will have a problem with that term. I think my other suggestion, by comparison, is the least objectionable solution: list a few of his most popular books (a very common approach in regard to authors on wiki), The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health and Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy. In this case we are using the most neutral option available, which no one would argue is not a pure statement of fact and would put the issue to bed. Rather than characterize the books in the lede (which is not typical on wiki), leave it to the body. As an aside, the lengthy descriptive book titles themselves do much of the work of describing the content of his views, so that's a bonus.

The updated lede would look like this, by my edit recommendation:

Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, a member of the prominent Kennedy family, a 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate, and an author of The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health and Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy. 2600:6C44:117F:E000:2C66:5B9D:1109:4A43 (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

[RFK Jr.] is the founder and long-time leader of an activist group known for anti-vaccine propaganda and misinformation. He is an environmental lawyer, a member of the prominent [K] family, and is running in the 2024 Democratic presidential primaries. It is NPOV and consistent with the news sources, which most often mention his anti-vax activism in the headline or first sentence.

I think that lede sentences naming list-of-books are for authors primarily known for list-of-books. In addition, what you suggested is a cognitive mess for the reader, who would have to read through three dozen words of unrelated text to induce what this person is notable for (because it doesn't say). -- M.boli (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed edit ignores the primary focus of the article. As it stands, and this is reflective of his life's works so it is warranted, RFK Jr's environmental and public health advocacy on non-vaccine related issues is most of what the article is about. I assume you're trying to find a fitting solution, but your proposed edit seems to be personally motivated considering the conversation up to this point. You are doubling down on a lede that is not consistent with how we treat wiki articles on individual people.

It is suitable to write that he is an author and list his most popular, best selling works. Just as it isn't necessary to deduce the content from the title's of listed works for any other author, that should also be the case in this article for RFK Jr. The content and criticism of these works can be learned in the body of the article. I think you misunderstood me when I said, "As an aside, the lengthy descriptive book titles themselves do much of the work of describing the content of his views, so that's a bonus." It's not imperative we know the content of the works, it's just an necessary happenstance - a footnote, not the content, of my comment.

I think the problem is that you understandably have very strong opinions about the vaccine issue, and do not fundamentally trust people to read through the article to come to their own conclusions on the character of RFK Jr. Although I sympathize, I don't think that is fair to readers.

My proposed edit lays the foundation and framing - as a lede - for the rest of the article as written, since 1) the COVID/vaccine content of the article revolves around claims made in his work The Real Anthony Fauci, 2) much of his environmental/public health position is articulated in Crimes Against Nature. Since these are focuses of the article, listing these two works is representative and logically precedes the body. Again, it is not necessary for the reader to know the full content of these works from reading the lede, and it's ok to trust readers to read on to learn more about the person and critiques of their work. 2600:6C44:117F:E000:2C66:5B9D:1109:4A43 (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed edit Who are you talking to? The indentation says it is me, but I did not suggest any edits. Neither did M.boli. And the one above that one, which actually does propose an edit, seems to be you yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to this:

"[RFK Jr.] is the founder and long-time leader of an activist group known for anti-vaccine propaganda and misinformation. He is an environmental lawyer, a member of the prominent [K] family, and is running in the 2024 Democratic presidential primaries."

It read like a suggested edit, since I did not see it written before in the thread. If that's not the case, apologies. Regardless, everything else isn't contingent on that detail. I notice that every time a comment is made in this discussion there's an exaggerated impulse to lash onto some detail, however small, in order to not engage with the central point that's being made. Not that you would do that, but just want to make sure that it's understood that the points I made are not contingent on that detail. 2600:6C44:117F:E000:2C66:5B9D:1109:4A43 (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

For some reason, I mistook that for the actual article text, but it is slightly different. Sorry. Of course, your response would have belonged between M-boli's contribution and mine, but now there have been responses, it is too late to change it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

the problem is that you understandably have very strong opinions about the vaccine issue No, the problem is that Kennedy has very strong and false opinions about the vaccine issue. Because of that, there are many RS that comment on that, and because of that, the vaccine section is the longest in the article. And because of that, it is also the most important one and must be summarized in the lede. Nothing you can say changes that. The best way not to be be called an anti-vax propagandist is not to be an anti-vax propagandist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Juris Doctor: unnecessary jargon?

@Lawace: has been changing "law degree" to "Juris Doctor degree".

I think "Juris Doctor degree" in the text is unnecessary jargon. Many readers will know what "he obtained his law degree" means but not "he obtained his Juris Doctor degree".

I think the technical name of the degree is proper in the info-box where degrees are listed. (In this article it is wiki-linked from "JD".) But in the narrative text, where it describes his education, using Juris Doctor will be obuscatory for many readers.

There has already been a round of edits. I explained my reasoning in the edit comments, but @lawace put it back in without comment. It is time to discuss here. -- M.boli (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Information in the infobox is supposed to be verifiable in the body of the article, so if we put the degree there (which we should) then it should also be in the body. Law degree is technically ambiguous and refers to other degrees as well as Juris Doctor degrees. So we should probably refer to him getting a JD at least once in the body of the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, the more common practice (as Google searches reveal) is to use the terms Doctor of Medicine and Master of Business Administration rather than medical degree or business degree. This should also be the more common practice for Juris Doctor (as a Google search reveals it alreday is).

Referring to the granting institution as "X University School of Law" rather than just "X University" will help to provide any necessary clarification.

Additionally, "law degree" is ambiguous since it also applies to B.A., LL.B., M.C.L., LL.M., and J.S.D. degrees.

Finally, the argument to use "law degree" is a form of circular logic: 'Don't use Juris Doctor because nobody knows what it means. Nobody knows what it means because we don't use Juris Doctor.' Lawace (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Some specific responses:

• The Law degree wiki-link utilized above makes my point. It says: [A]cademic degree conferred for studies in law. Such degrees are generally preparation for legal careers. This supports that indeed the common understanding of the term is accurate in this context.
• It is consistent with the more precise JD in the infobox. This is similar to a "D.A." or "D.Phil" degree. The exact degree title would be in the infobox, in the text it could say "Doctorate" as part of the general life history.
• "Law degree" is about 20% more frequent than "Juris Doctor" in English Wikipedia. "Degree in law" is similar in frequency to JD. But I guess "degree in law" would less frequently refer to a degree (as opposed to a descriptive term).
• There is no circular argument here. People come to Wikipedia with their cultural and linguistic backgrounds. That the term "law degree" is more commonly understood is not due to Wikipedia. Furthermore I note that when I reverted "Juris Doctor" back to "law degree" I left a wikilink to JD. So that charge is doubly wrong.

Using a term which is much less commonly understood when the more usual term conveys the correct information is user-hostile. -- M.boli (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Law degree would accurately refer to both his JD and LLM degrees. It's not a matter of common understanding of the term or frequency of usage on wikipedia. The issue is specifically here it makes the sentence less clear and more ambiguous because he holds two law degrees from two different universities. The specificity is needed here to clarify ambiguity. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong. Both instances in the text of "law degree" (now coverted to "Juris Doctor") explictly referred to his JD degree from Virginia. One is in the lede, one is in the early life and education section. His Master of Laws degree from Pace was labeled as such in the text, it was not called "law degree".

By the way, again you make my point. The sentence in early life and education reads as follows:

...earning a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Virginia School of Law, and a Master of Laws from Pace University

To the average reader a Doctor degree is likely to sound more advanced than a Master degree. In fact the first is the basic practictioner degree and the second is the advanced one. The original text

...earning a law degree from [UVA] and Master of Laws from [Pace]

more accurately communicates the progression to the average reader. -- M.boli (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine propaganda

"[...] known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories" shouldn't be in the first sentence. I say that we should move it downwards to the 3th paragraph. Ramanujaner (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Why? It seems kind of important that if this guy becomes the Democrat candidate, Americans will have to choose between two people who live in parallel fantasy universes. (It's probably a given that the Republican candidate will be no better. Their sane wing has been tiny and weak for several decades now.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine propaganda is, at the present time, RFK Jr's primary claim to notability.

• AP wire service: Anti-vaccine activist RFK Jr. launches presidential campaign April 19.

Anti-vaccine activist RFK Jr. challenging Biden in 2024 April 5.

• CNN: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the anti-vaccine activist and environmental lawyer, described himself as a truth-teller who will “end the division” as he launched ... April 19.
• NYT: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Soon to Announce White House Run, Sows Doubts About Vaccines April 17.

Robert Kennedy Jr., a Noted Vaccine Skeptic, Files to Run for President April 5.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Makes His White House Run Official. Announcing his long-shot bid to challenge President Biden, he spoke to a crowd of people who voiced their shared skepticism about vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry. April 19.

• The Hill: ABC News edits RFK Jr. interview to exclude 'false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines' April 28

Enough! If you search "Robert F Kennedy Jr." in google and eyeball first few pages, you will see the point. -- M.boli (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It is indeed what he is most notable for, and belongs in the first sentence. I very much like that it's phrased as American environmental lawyer and author known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories, rather than just American environmental lawyer, author, and conspiracy theorist (far too vague, easy for readers to dismiss) — DFlhb (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove the anti vaccine propaganda sentence all together. 66.198.209.98 (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Just lifting your hand in favor of something, without giving an actual reason, is worthless. M.boli gave a very good reason to keep it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That part written in the first line of text seems derogatory towards this person. In my opinion it should be moved to the paragraphs below. Mhorg (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep in first para: Until his presidential bid, since 2005 it's the thing he's been most notable for. If you limit a Google News search to the period before his presidential bid, it's more or less all you'll see: https://www.google.com/search?q=Robert+F.+Kennedy+Jr.&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB904GB904&biw=1600&bih=762&sxsrf=APwXEdeKV_EmS7nrxukLJpBACFi9AaE9oA%3A1683903262483&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A3%2F31%2F2023&tbm=nws BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

"Until his presidential bid, since 2005 it's the thing he's been most notable for."? This is flatly incorrect. He has a long history of litigating important environmental & patients rights issues. - Tzaquiel (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If only that had been more noticed by reliable sources. Or did they?

"Patients rights"? From context, this means patients rights to listen to quacks, to ignore facts, and to spread disease. Do reliable sources also spin that as "patients rights"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

"utilizes conspiracy theories" directly followed by "erosion of the middle class"

AFAIK middle-class squeeze is not regarded as a conspiracy theory, is there a particular reason this directly follows "conspiracy theories – "? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello there - yes, my bad. The fact these two were next to each other suggested that middle-class squeeze is a conspiracy theory, which it definitely isn't. I moved the middle-class stuff and made it a separate paragraph. Brat Forelli (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I took a shot at re-writing it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your response.

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

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

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

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

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

This seems as though it would fall under NPOV:

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

In which case this guideline would apply:

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is your thinking on this point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

For conspiracy theorists, everything is evidence of conspiracy theories.

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

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

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

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

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

This article from National Review address the matter directly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2023

This is inaccurate

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

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

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

Low importance

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

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

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

Compromise suggestion for the leading paragraph to the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you think mainstream sources are evil?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding your suggested wording above, here is a paraphrase:

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

If I can break that down:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2023 (2)

The word “propaganda” needs to be removed. Use of that is actual propaganda. This site is supposed to be neutral. 68.68.169.79 (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done A discussion about this is taking place above, feel free to join us, see "RFC on use of terms in first sentence". Miner Editor (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2023

RFK Jr. is pro safe vaccines and not a conspiracy theorist. 2600:6C54:7900:D623:C085:45EE:471:BA6E (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done A discussion about this is taking place above, feel free to join us, see "RFC on use of terms in first sentence". Miner Editor (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2023

Please change Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, politician, and writer who has promoted anti- vaccine propaganda[2][3][4][5] and health-related conspiracy theories.[5][6][7][8] to Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, politician, and writer who has been been at the forefront of

1. REDIRECT vaccine skepticism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy, and other health related issues.

Reason: The wording of the original is way too biased. Inflammatory wording is used in the description even though it is supposed to be a objective piece of information that many people will look at. 72.78.76.91 (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to participate in the ongoing Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#RFC_on_use_of_terms_in_first_sentence discussion slightly above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2023

Dear Sir/Madam, having reviewed RFJ Jnrs recent political and health related statements, it is patently clear he is not 'anti-vaccine', nor is he a conspiracy theorist. He simply states there are nuances in vaccine safety which he wishes to be more openly debated and there may be potential conflict of interests in the American healthcare system. These are not unreasonable statements or lines of debate. Furthermore, the citations provided to backup the assertion he is a conspiracy theorist seem to mostly be tabloid press articles, none of which seem to posess a hint of objectivity. I would like to suggest the description and tone of the introduction be ammended to refect the fact that making a contrarian point of order about a given political policy of the day does not automatically make one a conspiracy theorist.

I would like to change:

'writer who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories'

to:

'writer who has controversially written and campaigned for greater debate on the subject of vaccine safety and potential conflicts of interest within Americas health care system'

Or something to that effect. Thanks. Hendon1935 (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You are about the 200th person who wants this and does not get it. See the archives for the reasons why we will not do this. But WP:FALSEBALANCE is a good read for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

My request is to remove the anti-vaccine propaganda from Robert F Kennedy Jr’s descriptor. There is no proof nor justification to call what he represents propaganda. 2600:1700:118A:2B80:4C14:8E13:10EA:3959 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done You evidently misunderstand the standards for includability when you say " There is no proof..." for categorizing his work as "propaganda", because there are four solid sources immediately following the text in question. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not "proof" but the level and quality of coverage in reliable sources as outlined in WP:RS... I recommend you read it. Miner Editor (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2023

The article currently states Kennedy's wife, Mary, hanged herself in their Mt. Kisco, NY home. The home is actually in Bedford, NY. This is a fairly common error because their ZIP Code is shared between Mt. Kisco and this part of Bedford. Note the current source is the Bedford Voice. Here is the AP'S coverage: https://www.statesboroherald.com/world/ap-source-rfk-jrs-wife-hanged-herself/

Thank you! Lukevdl (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done The sources in the article Mary_Richardson_Kennedy state it was Bedford. RudolfRed (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

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

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

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

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

We should avoid using FAQ for status quo stonewalling particularly for BLP. FAQ also says "Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion." 208.127.72.121 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead of the article John Wilkes Booth says he "was an American stage actor who assassinated United States President Abraham Lincoln." It doesn't say he was an assassin or murderer. The article on Adolf Hitler does not begin by saying he was a murderer or that he was a conspiracy theorist who promoted propaganda. (He was btw an anti-vaxxer.)

What is the reason for using a polemical tone for RFK that is not used for far worse people?

TFD (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

And the lede for RFK Jr.'s article says he "has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theores." Which, if I read your comment correctly, is what you just suggested. M.boli (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"I had all six of my children vaccinated"

David Gorski has something to say about that. [8] --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that! Gorski takes apart RJK Jr.'s protest "I am pro-vaccine. I had all six of my children vaccinated," larded with anti-vax dog whistles. Do you have ideas on how to better contextualize this assertion in this article? -- M.boli (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"Science-Based Medicine" .org is a blog, not a reliable source. WP:USERGENERATED 208.127.72.121 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the perennial sources board says: Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. WP:SBM Miner Editor (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

To save others the time I wasted reading this, here is what David Gorski's blog "has to say about it":

"Kennedy has mentioned that he’s gotten all his kids vaccinated. Presumably this was all before he got interested in vaccines and learned of their safety issues. It’s possible that, given what he knows today, he would not vaccinate his kids, or at least limit the number of vaccines they got. It’s easy to imagine that this is something he’s changed his mind about...

Possible? It can never be proven definitively, but I’d bet money that if RFK Jr. were to have any more children he wouldn’t get any of them vaccinated against anything."

Mind-reading, and wagers, from a blog no less, is the basis upon which we'd like to add context? Can we be serious. 208.127.72.121 (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not we cite SBM, the lengthy book quote is undue. I think it would be reasonable to say something as short as "Kennedy denies being anti-vaccine." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The context refuting RFK Jr.'s self-serving "I am pro-vaccine" claim is his career. The quote from Gorski would be:

[H]is claims to be "fiercely pro-vaccine" notwithstanding, RFK Jr. demonstrated himself to be, in reality, fiercely antivaccine

However I also note Gorski's essay contains mind-reading, speculative wagering, and rhetorical questions. If there were a reliable source saying the obvious--RFK's protestation is contradicted by his career--we could include that to accompany his quote. Absent that, I'm not sure what this Wikiepdia article should say: simply leave the quote as-is, or put in the shorter statement proposed by @Firefangledfeathers. -- M.boli (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Shorter statement is better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please address this point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you keep calling yourself "we"? 220.81.203.104 (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this why you (the apparent self-appointed Wikipedia Lord for this article) allows citing Vanity Fair and Huffington Post as 'professional' sources to establish the subject's propagandist views?

If so, am I correct to say that we should cite tabloids like you, and we will be on the verge of crafting a great encyclopedia article here? Kindly get off your high chair and step into the real world. 220.81.203.104 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This isn't similar to Jill Stein, whose comments were twisted by political opponents to portray her as an anti-vaxxer. A fact check by Snopes found the claim to be false.[9]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I've created an RFC on the subject below. Tend to agree, the terms seem pejorative and UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Political views

Skepticism is misspelled in that section THEREALhistoryandgames (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Maybe not so much a spelling error but a WP:ENGVAR thing. The K version seems to be more common in American English which seems reasonable to use here Cannolis (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"There is a requirement..." I'm not exactly sure what you mean or how this is relevant. Could you expand on this? Is there a reliable sources list for Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia believe everything one of those sources states is 100% true 100% of the time? I didn't say that the sources needed another source. I said the sources needed stronger evidence.

"OR is always based on the assumption by the Wikipedia editor that they are more competent than all the groups of people who are involved in creating the reliable sources." I don't understand this. Could you rephrase? Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

""Talking a dive into sources" means to second-guess the sources. We should not do that because that would be WP:OR" What do you mean by this? Are you saying that I am making a claim, and so my claim is OR? Or something else? Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean WP:RS demands that we use reliable sources. It does not demand, as you seem to think, that the reliable sources give reliable sources. Why is that difficult to understand?

What do you mean by this? I mean that you should read WP:OR. What you are doing is not what WP:RS demands, namely using what the RS say. You want to apply your own thoughts. That is called OR. We do not do that. The reason we do not do that is that Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources write and not what some random person on the internet (you) thinks about it. You may think that you know it better than the source, and that may even be true now and then, but we cannot make exceptions. If you think the reliable source is wrong, publish that in another reliable source yourself. Then we can use it. Not before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you think a supposed 'reliable source' is more important to have than reliable information?

I did read OR. I'm not applying my own thoughts -- making a claim. Please re-read my OP. Cmsmith93 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It does not matter what I think. The rules tell us to use what RS say, and to disregard your analysis of what RS say. Just one example: let me give some definitions of conspiracy theory is completely irrelevant. RS say conspiracy theory, so conspiracy theory it is, no matter what a random person on the internet (you) thinks about it.

You do not understand how Wikipedia works, and it seems are not even trying to understand it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You are being incredulous. You know perfectly well the epistemic barrier of determining the reliability of a given source. You like these sources as they are because they describe RFK Jr. as you’d like him to be described. You are okay with the use of words such as “conspiracy theorist”, “dangerous” and “spreader of misinformation” despite the subjectivity of these terms.

A more passive voice can absolutely be used to describe RFK Jr.. I think it’s a shame that some people are too afraid to let a more objective description of him be written, and have resorted to locking this article to prevent that from happening. HistorianFromSyracuse (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you really think that telling people how they allegedly think, what they allegedly know, and which state their mind is allegedly in is a good way to convince them? Wrong. All you achieve is that people view you as a patronizing and overbearing weisenheimer. Use objective reasoning instead of argumentum ad hominem next time. (But of course, all the good reasoning is against your position, so, it is understandable that you use bad reasoning instead.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that interrogating sources is WP:OR, but agree with editors that want to keep the antivax and conspiracy labels in the lede. OR is clear in its application: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research... This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. OR is banned inside the article. OR is is not barred when making decisions about what to include. For example, if an AP article is written by an author who has been discredited for fabricating sources for articles, the evidence of authors unreliability may be OR, but is still relevant in determining whether or not to include the source.

That being said, here the sources are fine. OP has not provided convincing evidence that the sources are being misused or that they are unreliable. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

What you are talking about is a more exact assessment of the reliability of sources based on what is known about the reliability of the author. That is not what this discussion was about anyway, but of course you are right. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to convince people the 'evidence is being misused' or that the 'sources are unreliable'. Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

"Conspiracy theorist"

"The environmental lawyer turned conspiracy theorist"

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

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

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

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

Considering pharmaceutical industry TV advertising spending in the United States accounts for 75% of the total ad spend, NBC News has a conflict of interest with regard to topics of financial concern to pharma. They are not a reliable source on related topics.

[10]https://www.statista.com/statistics/953104/pharma-industry-tv-ad-spend-us/ 208.127.72.121 (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

(cont.) "Pharmaceutical advertisers spent more than most other sectors, NBCU said, with an increase of nearly 40% in commitments (in 2022)."

[11]https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/nbcuniversal-ad-sales-grow-streaming-1235306951/ 208.127.72.121 (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

See above regarding the purpose of Big pharma conspiracy theories. You are caught in an intellectual black hole. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I am in an "intellectual black hole", because I pointed out and provide supporting references, which suggest a potential conflict of interest? And for insisting the we uphold some of the most basic and fundamental of WP guidelines - That we do not present editorial commentary as authoritative fact regarding whose ideas we call "propaganda" and who we label a "conspiracy theorist"?

No. I'm merely insisting upon encyclopedic voice in the lead for a BLP. Can we try? 208.127.72.121 (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

See above. We do not need to have the same sham discussion twice. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. 208.127.72.121 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Labelling concern about encyclopedic voice a "sham" is nothing more than thinly-veiled stonewalling and POV pushing. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

That is why I am not Labelling concern about encyclopedic voice a "sham". I am correctly calling a sham piece of reasoning a sham piece of reasoning. Dismissing sources with vague handwaving about Big Pharma is a piece of sham reasoning.

When big-pharma-corrupted scientists fake studies, other scientists can tell that they did. Read Ben Goldacre's "Bad Pharma", where he does exactly that. That is the correct way to fight bad science. Not dismissing the results of good science one does not like by baselessly claiming it is bad science. Can we stop this? It has nothing to do with improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

What makes those sources "reliable"? Does Wikipedia have a list of sources they've deemed reliable?

I didn't say the source articles needed to have other sources. I said the evidence is weak and needs to be stronger -- please see the title of my comment and the scenario I gave. Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say Yes you did.

• There is no source/link so this isn't actually evidence
• no video is linked
• "he launched into an anti-vaccine rant" -- link?

Maybe you should gather more Wikipedia experience before jumping into contentious topics. A few more points:

The lead of an article does not even need any sources - see WP:LEDECITE. The same things are sourced further down in the body of the article.

It is consensus in science that Kennedy's ideas about vaccination are false. The rules say that we can only use sources that actually mention Kennedy. Those will not go into depth because it is common knowledge among science-literate people that his antivaxer crap is crap. The sources in articles like Andrew Wakefield, Thimerosal, MMR vaccine and autism go into detail about that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"Yes you did." Sources and evidence are two different things. Fox News, CNN, The Atlantic, Nature, etc could be used as sources. Evidence is data, video, images or photos, etc.

"Maybe you should..." you've turned to insults and bad faith so I won't be responding to you again. Cmsmith93 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources and evidence are two different things This is sophism. There is no source/link literally demands that the source give a source. no video is linked demands a that the source link a video, which would be a source.

Not continuing this losing battle is a great idea, although the reason for it is bad because telling an inexperienced person that they are inexperienced is not an insult. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

What makes those sources "reliable"? Does Wikipedia have a list of sources they've deemed reliable? Yes, the list of sources that editors have agreed, by consensus, as reliable here: WP:RSPSOURCES CT55555(talk) 11:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"generally reliable" is the verbiage consistently used throughout that page for what they find to be a reliable source. So the Wikipedia editors/administrators are aware that even though they may deem a source 'reliable', that same source can have incorrect information. Cmsmith93 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is less about whether or not the sources are reliable, but rather whether or not the sources are hyperbolic. Many sources are considered reliable because they hold opinions and write about subjects with enough spin such that a plurality of people will not find them disagreeable enough for the source to lose reputation.

The first link in CT55555’s post above to The Guardian article is an example of persuasive writing designed to confirm the biases of and audience who wants RFK Jr.’s reputation to sustain damage and further amass extant confusion confusion. Anyone with a critical mind who reads that article and sees that ‘meditation’ and ‘prayer’ have been oversimplified in the article’s title as “having conversations with the dead” can sense the myopic, narrow view of this otherwise “reliable” source which can be conveniently used as a footnote for wikipedia.

Furthermore, this comes off to most wikipedia users as petty. Just because you’ve found a reliable source that describes a subject a certain way does not mean that the voice in which that subject is written of is neutral snd objective, because other reliable sources and other perspectives exist.

I hope this attitude around epistemology in language on Wikipedia changes, or it is going to seriously damage the reputation of Wikipedia for the worse. HistorianFromSyracuse (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to read suggested replacement articles, but please make sure they're worthwhile. The title of The Guardian article reads, "Robert F Kennedy Jr says he has ‘conversations with dead people’", which makes him sound insane. In the The Free Press article, where the comment came from, you'll read he was referring to 'meditation and prayer' where he talks to his 'uncle and father'. That's a really personal thing and it's pretty disturbing that someone would go that route to take a jab at someone else. Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

A few things things,

1) Another source was added; https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/210106-The-Anti-Vaxx-Playbook.pdf. This PDF just quotes RFK Jr saying things the CCDH disagrees with and doesn't actually provide evidence to prove RFK Jr is wrong about anything. It's actually quite lazy. I think the easiest example of this is providing evidence to disprove this quote by RFK Jr, "the risk of dying from Covid if you are under 20 is zero." We can all tell this is something RFK Jr is most definitely exaggerating, but you could still show he's wrong by proving links to say something like this... https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Sci_Brief-Children_and_adolescents-2021.1. You can download that document and the deaths for 'newborns' through 'young adults' can be found at the bottom of page 2. According to that report it's not zero. This CCDH report is another bad resource for evidence of these claims because the evidence is severely lacking.

2) Here are videos of him talking about vaccines...

https://www.wmur.com/article/closeup-kennedy-will-put-himself-to-the-test-of-nh-voters/43678129 (vaccines discussion in the video starts just after 8:00). Supposedly, he and his children are vaccinated.

https://news.sky.com/story/robert-f-kennedy-jr-nephew-of-jfk-to-challenge-biden-for-democratic-presidential-nomination-12851090. He's for investigating Moderna, J&J, and Pfizer. He's supposedly losing money to his charity, not gaining any from it. About halfway through the video he counters the CDC's information with, "show me the scientific study", so he's pro-science about the vaccines.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-covid-orthodoxy-faucis-legacy/id1532976305?i=1000583866191. He constantly talks about how he is leaning on evidence to make his conclusions.

3) How do I talk to the actual editors on here? It looks like I'm getting other random people who cannot change the article. Cmsmith93 (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

*I've created an RFC on this subject below. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Please remove this. I wish for my post to remain independent from your poll. Cmsmith93 (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)