Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Misrepresentation of 2023 RFC

Some editors have cited a 2023 RFC that concluded: This close finds no consensus with regards to solution three (delaying the content under discussion)—viable arguments were raised against the information being delayed later than the end of the first paragraph. Ending the first sentence after "writer" remains a very viable option. to state that a definite determination has been made on whether activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation belongs in the first sentence. This is inaccurate.

Rather, the RFC concluded that the (accurate and well-sourced) statement that including anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories belongs in the lead of the page. Those are two different things. Ending it at the first paragraph inaccurately implies that the other conspiracy theories he has promoted are at least plausible. (Which they're not.) It's also stylistically awkward and attempts to summarize his entire career (even pre-2005) as simply being conspiracy theories. (Which is also incorrect.)

Kennedy Jr.'s page and persona is remarkably similar to that of Naomi Wolf, who started off as a mainstream feminist writer until the 2010s, in which she started to promote conspiracy theories (including surrounding COVID-19) and other insane assertions. Her page's first sentence lists her as a conspiracy theorist (correctly) and then leaves it at that before listing the theories that she has promoted in its third and fourth paragraph. The same case should apply here.

As multiple seasoned editors have objected to the change (including TFD, me, and others). I made a comprehensive improvement to the article that changed his description to "conspiracy theorist" and expanded what conspiracy theories he has promoted since 2005. This seems much more reasonable to me. For individuals who originally became famous/well-known/respected for one thing, and then go, to put it nicely, "crazy", the

WP: PRECEDENT seems clear. KlayCax (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

RFK Jr.'s occupation for two decades has been promulgating anti-vax and medical misinformation and a big assortment of conspiracy theories. He is America's most famous vaccine misinformer. Removing Jr's occupation from the first sentence is malpractice. -- M.boli (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like the past decade. He made similar comments before that, but they were generally dismissed as an individual quirk. (In terms of it being a leading thing associated with him.) According to Politico and other sources, RFK was a well-respected environmentalist and lawyer until the early 2010s. (Here's one article stating it. There's many more.) He was considered for a position in a Democratic administration in 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012.
Again, this is much closer to a Naomi Wolf situation. It would be similarly wrong to summarize the first sentence of her article as: Naomi Rebekah Wolf (born 1962) is an American feminist author, journalist, and conspiracy theorist who for posting misinformation on topics such as beheadings carried out by ISIS, the Western African Ebola virus epidemic, and Edward Snowden. It's clearly a form of editorialization intended to "prime" readers. KlayCax (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, multiple seasoned editors have supported mentioning Kennedy's promotion of anti-vaccine misinformation in the first sentence, as it's so central to Kennedy's notability. Inclusion is the status quo ante that preceded the no consensus RfC finding. I don't think we need a whole RfC to change it, but I would hope to see more consensus before it's removed again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an important part of his identity. I wouldn't state that it's the only part of his identity that's notable, however. He was widely respected until the past decade or so for his environmental work. Heck, as I mentioned above, he was widely considered a favorite for a leadership role in a Democratic administration and had wide acclaim from environmental organizations as late as the mid-2010s. Beyond this, Kennedy Jr.'s conspiracy theories aren't limited to vaccines, but other subjects as well. It's not limited to that.
TFD was however wrong to remove conspiracy theorist from the lead (I'm assuming the RFC isn't about the first sentence. Rather, it's about whether conspiracy theorist should be claimed at all.) KlayCax (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When Jr. announced his candidacy, most of the RS news reports ID-ed him as a prominent anti-vaxer and health conspiracy nut. I'd venture that nobody ID-ed him as once was rumored to be under consideration for a government post. His most recent five books have all been in this realm. His job for the past decade has been chairing Children's Health Defense. He makes movies and files lawsuits in this area.
Removing his anti-vax notability from the lede sentence because it is more fully described later in the lede is a strange explanation. Everything in the lede sentence is duplicative, expanded further in the lede.
Again: leaving this out of the lede sentence is malpractice. -- M.boli (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's not the only part of his notability, and I'm happy that the first sentence includes multiple notable roles. I would not say that his conspiracy theorist activities have been limited to anti-vaccine misinfo, but it's also not true that his anti-vaccine activities have been restricted to conspiracy theorizing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theorists, by definition, promote claims without evidence. It's inherently part of the definition.
  • WP: PRECEDENT
    is clear.
  • MOS:FIRST
    is also clear that: Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Avoid cluttering the first sentence. The current phrasing is stylistically awkward and editorializing. (e.g. It comes across as "this is a very bad guy!") It's also purely reductant. There's no need to state a claim three times in the lead. It's insulting to the intelligence of readers.
The
WP: IMPLICITCONSENSUS claim was based off of a misunderstanding of the 2023 RFC. (Otherwise, it's clear that a majority of editors here oppose the phrasing, per the previous reasons cited.) KlayCax (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I haven't misunderstood the 2023 RfC, and you may want to ping whoever you think has so we can correct their misunderstanding. A no consensus RfC doesn't enshrine the status quo ante forever, but it is the status quo ante, and I'm not sure why we couldn't have followed BRD with this. I don't think we've overloaded the first sentence—it's on par with multiple featured article biographies (a better comparison than the B-class Wolf article)—and even if it were, Kennedy's anti-vaccine activities would not be first on the chopping block. I'm not sure if you're serious about "conspiracy theorist" inherently including all unevidenced claims or misinformation, but I hope this was just a misstep in an otherwise reasonable position. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with you that Kennedy Jr. should be mentioned as a conspiracy theorist in the leading sentence (TFD is the distinct minority here; consensus, in this case, seems clear). My position is based on the fact that articles that talk about conspiracy theorists who were once mainstream essentially never summarize their current beliefs as the summary as their life. All I believe is that the same should apply here.
Do you think the analogy to Naomi Wolf is warranted? Or no? Because Kennedy Jr.'s career path reminds me a lot of her. KlayCax (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Coverage of Wolf is all over the place in terms of what conspiracy theories and misinfo she's gotten into. With RFKJ, there's a clear center with some branching out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy Theorist in any capacity today is considered an INSULT. Some carry it as a badge of honor and proudly proclaim it - most of these people are not truly serious. To call someone a conspiracy theorist because they explore, question or expose information surrounding a 'known conspiracy' is irresponsible name calling and about as closed minded as one can get. This is not a moniker that should be applied to a fact based information article collective like Wiki. Caveat: If an individual is a 'self proclaimed conspiracy theorist' then put it in the bio - they said it, however to simply label someone who is causing people to question the status quo or force people, in general to question anything, is actually bias and frankly an evil tool to discourage free thinking.
Anti-vaccine misinformation 'sited from reliable sources' - First things first, the sources who labeled this 'misinformation' did so with out all of the facts and their own opinions. Just because someone doesn't trust an experimental vaccine or any vaccine for that matter doesn't warrant demonizing them. If they want to allow their own body to fight the fight or they witnessed an adverse affect of a particular vaccine or they have working knowledge of what is in a vaccine, that is their right. Sharing this information with others is how stimulating conversations are born. Telling others what they may know is not cause for attacking them. Again, calling names is not what something like Wiki should allow or promote.
In closing I want to remind everyone of your 1st thru the entire constitutions list of God given rights. To question your government is to hold them accountable for your expectations. To demonize someone for having a different opinion than you is wrong and infringes on their rights. Wikipedia was intended to be something great and forcing your opinions on others is not, laughably in my humble opinion, part of the intended greatness. Let us remember we all live on the same ball of mud in the same milky swirl in the heavens. To quote Joe Friday from Dragnet "All we want are the facts ma'am". McGreggor13 (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — McGreggor13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Fact is that RFK Jr is a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Were you not paying ANY attention to what I said? This is exactly the behavior that should not be here. If you want to blast someone go to Falsebook. Conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer are both negative connotations meant to demonize a group people who think differently than another group of people.
P.S. congratulations on your Wiki accomplishments. McGreggor13 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — McGreggor13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
They are reliably sourced descriptors, and
WP:NPOV means we reflect those neutrally on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Name calling, even when referenced from a 'reliable and or reputable source' is still name calling. I explored each one. A neutral point of view marker is a copout of responsibility. I'm just disappointed that this would be something sent to print. I don't personally have any stock in RFK jr. It's about fair facts to me. So what if he is both of those things, it's rude to add a negative moniker to someone's bio who doesn't claim them as title. That's all I'm trying to say. McGreggor13 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — McGreggor13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It's not "name calling". It's a moniker he has earned through his own efforts. It's completely fair. And
he would deny being a "conspiracy theorist, wouldn't he? Dictators don't always claim the title of dictator, nor child predators (not saying that RFK Jr is either of those, but just that we have plenty of wiki bios on them), but that doesn't change facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Just because your opinion is that he earned it doesn't make it a matter of FACT. Look you have a wonderful blessed week. We're obviously not going to come to a consensus that opinions have no place in an "encyclopedia of facts". Good luck with the baseball stuff. McGreggor13 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — McGreggor13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:YESBIAS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, I totally understand now, just say Wikipedia is flaming garbage. I got you. My sincerest apologies for misunderstanding the scope and intent of Wiki. I'll take my 'exit stage right' cue stfu. Have a great day. McGreggor13 (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — McGreggor13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Anti-vaccine propaganda is, at the present time, RFK Jr's primary claim to notability. Here is a survey of main news sources from April last year, when RFK Jr. announced he will run for president. Most commonly these these reports put the anti-vax stuff in the lede sendence. The reliable sources were pretty consistent with ID-ing him as an anti-vaxer.

  • 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 weighs in on an interview with the new candidate: ABC News edits RFK Jr. interview to exclude 'false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines' April 28

In addition to the reliable sources, the sheer weight of RFK Jr.s work product is hard to ignore. The past five books. Movies. Law suits. The guy is a veritable gusher of anti-vax and conspiracy theory bushwa. And not surprisingly this is what the reliable sources tell us. -- M.boli (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They write the same about Naomi Wolf now as well. Again, news articles have a natural bias towards WP: presentism. A Wikipedia article is supposed to be comprehensive.
No one's denying he's spread misinformation. Many just think that the total aggregate summary of his life can't be distilled into that. KlayCax (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: description of RFK Jr's views on vaccines etc.

There is a strong consensus that the lead should say "RFK Jr. is a conspiracy theorist." There was a small amount of support for B, but most of the support votes also supported A. I discounted the votes for for C that came from IP or SPA accounts that didn't offer policy based rational. The consensus reflects reliably sourced coverage. - Nemov (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

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.


Should the lead say, (a) RFK Jr. is a conspiracy theorist, (b) RFK Jr. promotes conspiracy theories, or (c) avoid both terms in describing his views. TFD (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • (b) Neutrality means that we should use descriptions typically used in reliable sources. He is variously described in reliable sources as "one of the most prominent faces of the anti-vaccine movement, according to experts," (ABC News)[1] "founded Children’s Health Defense, an organization that regularly spreads anti-vaccine misinformation, and has promoted anti-vaccine conspiracy theories," (CNN)[2] "anti-vaccination activist,"(BBC News) [3] and "conspiracy theorist and vaccination opponent." (The Guardian)[4]
WP:IMPARTIAL says that the tone of article should be impartial. That doesn't mean changing the facts in articles, but just the wording. We should not for example refer to someone as a disabled person, but a person with a disability. This is called People-first language
. It avoids marginalization and dehumanization by describing what a person has or does rather than what they are.
Could anyone replying to my comment please do so in the comments section below.
TFD (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option C. Jumping into the labeling of negativity is not correct. Remove mentions of it. People need to do research. Envyforme (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option C. Let people come to their own conclusions without labeling him from the 32.221.241.159 (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C None of his statements about vaccines or anything elese comes from a conspiratorial point of view. He has won cases and represented people on many of the views he holds after careful reading of the science literature. Claiming a source is reliable, because they have been purported to be reliable in the past does not make a reasonable claim. It is very much an editorialization of his views that comes from a place of bias, and should not be valid in the itroduction of a person who is much more than the opinions of mainstream biased journalists. 2600:100C:A20F:C396:487:C6F2:B3DD:2ED3 (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C options A & B are simply baseless and discredit the legitimately of wikipedia 2601:548:C103:2E40:E941:8CA7:C4EB:24E5 (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(C) The only primary sources that make claims of RFK Jr being ‘anti-vax,’ or a ‘conspiracy theorist,’ are funded by organizations with a financial interest in the current system. He has repeatedly stated that he wants better testing (third-party). That sounds like a position that is more consistent with the scientific method. 2601:405:8500:76A0:980C:DC9E:AAE2:CB82 (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C. Avoid both terms. He is not a conspiracy theorist nor is he promoting conspiracy theories. 2604:2D80:5009:FC00:65D7:B833:A439:2EFB (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C. Avoid both terms. He is not a conspiracy theorist nor is he promoting conspiracy theories. Sbegonia515 (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — Sbegonia515 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
C. seems the obvious choice on a platform seemingly intended to inform not convince. I am sympathetic to the opinions of others and recognize their 1st amendment right have them and they be different than mine; however this is not a place for opinions. Something like Wikipedia, at least to me, should remain fact based ONLY despite the popularity of said facts. The term conspiracy theorist is widely intended to be an insult in today's day and age. It is irresponsible for Wiki to allow this type of blatant negative labeling. This also has a defamation air to it. McGreggor13 (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — McGreggor13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
(End of IP-SPA Gallery above)
  • A - This reflects what the sources say. I'm concerned there might be some meatpuppeting going on above? Comments such as "wikipedia is not the place for opinions" does not demonstrate a thorough knowledge of wikipedia policies and practices, which leads me to suspect that there might be off-site canvassing. Please note: we're all about opinions, if those opinions are reported and extensively discussed in reliable sources. Avoiding labels that could be disparaging is expressly not what
    WP:NPOV means. Fieari (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comments

Can we get some sort of examples here this is kind of meaningless.Moxy🍁 02:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I provided four examples in my vote. TFD (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, an example for A might be:

Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. ... is an American politician ... and conspiracy theorist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation.

Whereas B might look like:

Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. ... is an American politician ... and activist who promotes conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine misinformation.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unknown-Tree, sorry if I wasn't clear. The reason reliable sources use the expression "person with a disability" rather than "disabled person" is to avoid dehumanizing them. Calling someone an environmental lawyer is not dismissive or judgmental. Other examples of respectful language are "undocumented immigrant" instead of "illegal immigrant," "person of color" instead of "colored person." While many people see this as politically correct nonsense, it's how language is used in reliable sources today. TFD (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But "conspiracy theorist" is how reliable sources cover RFK Jr. (and is what we say in other articles, too), and there's a notable difference between something like a conspiracy theorist and sometimes like someone who's disabled. Yes, I do agree that in the latter instance, we should avoid dehumanising language, but the usage of "conspiracy theorist" is not dehumanising when a major part of his brand identity is his anti-vaccine views. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, some, such as The Guardian, do while most, such as ABC News, CNN and BBC News, don't. TFD (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but this appears to be a malformed RFC. Does anyone dispute that he's a conspiracy theorist? I'm assuming this has to do with the first sentence? Or no? KlayCax (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I was not clear. The question is about how he should be described: as a conspiracy theorist, as someone who supports conspiracy theories or some other phrasing. TFD (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that he's not a conspiracy theorist? Because it seems obvious to me that he is. I feel like I'm misinterpreting something. KlayCax (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, please read my comment above. Articles say Joe Biden "made several false or exaggerated claims," Donald Trump Trump "promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements," Bill Clinton "engaged in an extramarital affair with Gennifer Flowers" and Osama bin Laden "was the organizer of the September 11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people."
Yet their articles do not refer to them as a liar, a conspiracy theorist, an adulterer and a murderer. My concern is that this article use the neutral tone used in most reliable sources rather than judgmental terminology more suited for polemical writing. TFD (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there reliable sources that call them that? For the first three, if you wanted to explain to somebody who they are, those words are not the first that come to mind because they have done more important things. For Osama, "murderer" is a bit tame and also follows logically from more pertinent descriptions. But for Kennedy, as others explained, conspiracy theorist is basically his job description. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See "The Conspiracy Theorist in Chief" (Jamelle Bouie, Slate March 6, 2017), which begins, "Donald Trump is a conspiracy theorist." But we are not supposed to decide what terminology to use, then search for sources that use them. we are supposed to use the terminology usually used in rs. TFD (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've thrown in my vote but even though the activist part isn't dealt with in the RfC, "anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist" would be much better than "conspiracy theorist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation" in my eyes. Even if an activist isn't dealing in the truth they're still an activist, and we deal with the fact it's misinformation in the third paragraph. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's janky, and both fall under the title of conspiracy theorist. There's no need to repeat it three times in the lead. It's insulting to the intelligence of readers. KlayCax (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Edit request for Abortion section

Hello, the "Abortion" section under the "Political Views" tab could be updated to better reflect the latest information.

Current: In 2023, Kennedy said on camera to NBC reporter Ali Vitali that, if elected, he would sign a federal ban on abortions performed after 15 weeks or 21 weeks of pregnancy. He went on to say, "I think the states have a right to protect a child once the child becomes viable, and that right, it increases." His campaign quickly released a statement saying, "Today, Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question posed to him by a NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair....Mr. Kennedy's position on abortion is that it is always the woman's right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion."[188]

Updated: As a candidate for 2024 U.S. President, Kennedy has shared his firm support for bodily autonomy and the judicial principles established in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, arguing abortion should be a legal option for women to best determine for themselves on an individual basis as opposed to government regulation. He has stated a key part of his position is his view that abortion cannot be considered in isolation from support for mothers and families, citing universal free childcare and other economic relief policies as ways to create more hospitable conditions for young families and to reduce the rate of individual abortions. [1] [2]

In 2023, Kennedy said on camera to NBC reporter Ali Vitali that, if elected, he would sign a federal ban on abortions performed after 21 weeks of pregnancy. He added, "I think the states have a right to protect a child once the child becomes viable, and that right, it increases." His campaign quickly released a statement saying, "Today, Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question posed to him by an NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair ... Mr. Kennedy's position on abortion is that it is always the woman's right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion."[188] JLuzPaz (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, could you kindly let me know the process for establishing a consensus on this edit request?
As I understood it, this page currently has restrictions and so edits are supposed to be offered up here on the Talk page and then editors can implement them from there, yes? Please let me know if I am missing something. I'm happy to help. JLuzPaz (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Edit requests#Planning a request --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, ask for consensus before using the template. In this case, I oppose your proposed addition. I was going to say wording like firm support for bodily autonomy sounds like it could have come from his campaign page, and it seems that yes you are citing his campaign website for the change. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I appreciate you clarifying the process and I'll post here without going through the template function. Yes, I cited the candidate's views on this topic as publicly stated on their official campaign website, as well as the Washington Post's overview of 2024 candidate positions. The Washington Post cites the official campaign website as well. You oppose? JLuzPaz (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Muboshgu -- hey there, just wanted to check back on my last comment about a proposed update to this section. Thanks! JLuzPaz (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WaPo is fine as a source. His campaign page is not. I haven't looked at what WaPo says as its behind a paywall and I'm not a subscriber. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Muboshgu -- there's no subscription required for Washington Post's overview of each candidate's positions on various topics: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2023/presidential-candidates-2024-policies-issues/robert-kennedy-jr-abortion/
As for the campaign website, would that not be a relevant / primary source for citing any candidate's stated "Political Views," given that is where all candidates specifically go to describe their views to the public? From my perspective, it would seem rather impractical NOT to cite a candidate's own views as directly stated on their official website for a campaign, and only cite third-party descriptions ABOUT those views…(aside from Washington Post citing the same website in this instance). Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! JLuzPaz (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Muboshgu -- I just wanted to check on my last comment. JLuzPaz (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to change anything, and that no other editor on this page has jumped in suggests to me that they don't see a need to change anything either. It's better to use secondary sources than primary. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proposed updates to RFK Jr.'s abortion positions belong in the Abortion and fertility medicine section of the campaign article. Which is way out of date.
The
Political views
section in this article has too much cruft.
  • Some parts of this article's political views section are related to Kennedy's work, e.g. his conspiracy theories, his environmental advocacy, etc.
  • Other views are related to topics he has long spoken out on, so he might be known as a prominent voice advocating those positions. The section "additional statements on foreign affairs" would be in that category, he is sort of a hero in anti-war movement circles.
  • However the gun control section was added last summer, abortion was added last fall. It seems his views on neither were considered notable aspects of RFK Jr's biography until he ran for president.
My thought is political views which become notable only in the context of his political campaign belong in the campaign article. Where, of course, they should be well-documented. And that article is sorely in need of your update.
And they should be deleted from here.
I'll put a {{main}} pointer in this article, referring over to the campaign article where his views on these topics are elaborated in more depth. -- M.boli (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.kennedy24.com/faq
  2. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2023/presidential-candidates-2024-policies-issues/robert-kennedy-jr-abortion/

RFC: What should the first sentence say about Kennedy Jr.?

Seems to be agreement this is not helpful. Bon courage (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.


What should the first sentence say about Kennedy Jr.?

  1. is an American politician, environmental lawyer, activist, and conspiracy theorist (and/or) anti-vaccine activist. (With Kennedy assassination + anti-vaccine misinformation + public health conspiracy conspiracy theories moved to another part of the lead.)
  2. is an American politician, environmental lawyer, and activist who promotes conspiracy theories surrounding members of the Kennedy family, anti-vaccine misinformation, and other public health conspiracy theories. (conspiracy theories surrounding members of the Kennedy family, anti-vaccine misinformation, and other public health conspiracy theories should be stated twice. Once in the leading sentence. The other in the last paragraph of the lead.)
  3. is an American politician, environmental lawyer, and activist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories. ("Who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories". should be stated twice. One time in the first sentence. The other in the last paragraph of the lead.)
  4. Conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassinations, anti-vaccine misinformation, and public health conspiracy theories shouldn't be mentioned in the lead at all.
  5. Another option not listed.

Started due to long-term editing dispute without consensus. Interested to see everyone's thoughts. Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Why start an rfc about the lead sentence when there's already an open rfc about mentioning "conspiracy theorist" in the lead? Also, there is no "long-term editing dispute", the only disgruntled editor bent on removing the current lead wording appears to be you. Zaathras (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TFD and others have objected as well. Kennedy Jr. is obviously a conspiracy theorist so it's a
WP: SNOWCLOSE situation. KlayCax (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
That doesn't address the point that there's already an RfC open on essentially the same effing thing. Zaathras (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One is about whether Kennedy should be described as a conspiracy theorist.
The other is about whether "Kennedy assassination + anti-vaccine misinformation + public health conspiracy conspiracy theories" belongs in the first sentence. Two different things.
(I suppose labeling Kennedy as a conspiracy theorist. I oppose the rest being in the lead sentence.) Two different topic areas. I realize they're unfortunately pretty similar, however. KlayCax (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close This is just repeatedly submitting RfCs in order to eventually get enough people (often SPAs) to vote for the
    WP:FRINGE-violating version. Even if that wasn't your intent, KlayCax, that's how it appears. SilverserenC 02:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    RFC's aren't determined by numbers. (In regards to your SPA-question). They're determined by Wikipedia policy.
    TFD, me, and several other editors have all objected to the phrasing, and this is the most simple way to resolve the matter without an endless comment chain. KlayCax (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you reopen the RfC or is there a way to get someone above silverseren involved? I'm tired of the way Wikipedia handles this stuff this is getting ridiculous. 189.202.249.202 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC isn't closed. It's a suggested close, @189.202.249.202:. I do however agree with you that much of the phrasing belongs in the third paragraph. KlayCax (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you do your job and actually see quite a large number of people don't like this description and want it changed? Instead you turn down RfCs and allow a blockage of specific edits to be decided by a minority. Very sad. 189.176.48.231 (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, the opinions of IPs who are not actual editors in standing here do not get counted when determining consensus of a discussion in a contentious topic areas. like this. Zaathras (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, having some sign in problems being out of the country I reside in.
    the topic is contentious, but you cannot let contentious topics block your mindset from actual conversation to update something that should be adjusted. The requests are being made in reason on this talk page. Envyforme (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • #5: Option not listed—an American politician and conspiracy theorist. (By now, other than being a Kennedy, he is known for two things). The first sentence of the lead should be no more complex than necessary. Further details are summarized later in the lede. (perhaps one more identifying phrase might be added to the leading sentence, but no more. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 05:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) —[reply]
    I agree with this option. Maybe also say lawyer. But the rest of the lede has necessary information and the opening sentence should be succinct. Tchouppy (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close due to incoming trainwreck. This is a lot of options and it doesn't even include the status quo ante. If not closed, then Option 5/status quo ante, specifically "is an American politician, environmental lawyer, and activist who promotes conspiracy theories surrounding members of the Kennedy family, anti-vaccine misinformation, and other public health conspiracy theories". As opposed to option 2, this should not be repeated verbatim later in the lead, though some details of each part should be mentioned. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply close this RfC with no alteration. Status quo is OK, viz: is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist. It covers most of the main claims to notability. It is reasonably succinct.
    I think adding a clause about promoting misinformation would enhance it.
    Diluting conspiracy theorist with a misleading qualifier about Kennedy family is simply wrong.
    The person who started this misbegotten RfC lets us know the reason earlier: the lede "comes accross as 'this is a very bad guy'". I don't see why that would be a problem. -- M.boli (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you label someone as a "bad guy" when he isn't a bad guy, the fact you don't see that as a problem is very concerning. Envyforme (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 - Something different.
"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), aka RFK Jr., is a multifaceted figure, engaging in American politics, environmental law, and advocacy, notably challenging conventional views on vaccine safety."
This verbatim I believe solves every single problem here. I believe jumping the gun and immediately calling someone anti-anything or a conspiracy theorist is incorrect, and doesn't continue to shine a character correctly. You can mention it in the second sentence if you want, but, keep in mind, Google, Facebook, and multiple other embedded web calls to wikipedia continue to show the first sentence for searching a specific figure.
Google RFK JR now. you see the term "Conspiracy Theorist and Anti Vax." If you dig further into the person, you can see he has a very bright history, and has a great background as an environmental lawyer and politician. This is part of the reason I cannot help but ask if this is a bit politically motivated by Democrats/Republicans. I want to keep the topic away from here, but I do have to bring this up.
Wikipedia is used to provide information to people in a non-biased matter. Not to label people a certain way directly, right away. Focusing on the downfalls of someone and prioritizing that is weaponizing a website like Wikipedia, and not correct.
Do NOT. I repeat Do NOT Close the RFC based on claims of keeping the current verbatim, as this is not correct and many others do not agree with this. Envyforme (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to write a gushing hagiography about the subject then run, don't walk, to Twitter and tweet it out. This sort of thing will never appear in the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide an alternative? I think it is fair and just. Envyforme (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not do
WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

This statement: "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist. " states two opinions, that cannot be corroborated (because they are opinions): 1) anti-vaccine activist is erroneous, and ill-formed: RFK is not, nor has he ever been, against vaccines, per se. He is for vaccine transparency. That is all. Please provide citation that states RFK is against vaccines. Should be changed to "advocate for vaccine transparency" 2) conspiracy theorist - unproveable, hence erroneous. You provide "citations" from two works, that in themselves are opinions. In order to claim that someone is an conspiracy theorist, you must first delineate something as a theory - in fact, Kennedy has always cited medial references, amply, in his books and discussions, that point to verifiable evidence for his claims. There is no "theory", only evidence.

In general, the use of such social buzzwords - used to label people for political purposes, rather than for the education of people, should be discouraged, or banned, from Wikipedia.

The fact that this article is uneditable is also suspect, in a Presidential campaign cycle. 204.144.213.38 (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please see the talk page history. We have had this discussion an infinite amount, and it is the common consensus that RFK is an anti-vaccine activist who promotes conspiracy theories. If you want to try make the case that someone who said Bill Gates would cut off people's access to money for not getting vaccinated and thinks COVID is ethnically targeted, you are wasting your time and will get nothing achieved here. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party affiliation

Hello, I believe in the other party section of the infobox We the People Party should be added and it would redirect to his campaign page. This is because he has founded this party for ballot access in many states, perhaps something to that tune can be added as a footnote to it. There is a campaign video he posted titled "I‘m creating a new political party" that explains this Colin.1678 (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to suggest that this party actually exists, apart from a few "he says he's gonna create it" articles from the beginni9ng of the year. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The party exists. Unquestionably 2601:244:4582:E560:8962:DC1D:2563:6609 (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it. Zaathras (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawaii is the only state that has certified the party. TFD (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2024

I think we are done, and let's not start singing Creed songs here. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Change anti vaxx to "anti FORCED vaccinations without proof of benefit or effectiveness"

Remove conspiracy theorist because his ideas are being proven in court. 2603:8001:8600:7732:9830:FF88:ABB1:2AF1 (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IP and BigMouthCommie: Read the sources cited in the article. If you have reliable sources that contradict them, bring them. If you don't have any, this section is for the birds. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hob Gadling I don't have any knowledge about the specifics the other user raised, but I do have a bit of a bias about charged language being adopted int articles, regardless of the verifiability. that is to say, even if an otherwise reliable source has characterized a person, group, or event in one way or another, we should strive to present a neutral point of view. conspiracy theorist is pretty obviously a dysphemism, so I'm sure we could find a more neutral term. as for antivax, as I said, I don't know if that's actually his position, but we should try to honestly communicate his position if we are going to discuss it. commie (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The terms are sourced and accurate. They will not be changing. Zaathras (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaathras One of the sources is an editorial in vanity Fair. that cannot be considered a reliable source even if vanity Fair in some other context might be. The other source from the ap supports the claim that he's anti-vax very well. The characterization of him as a conspiracy theorist cannot be well sourced: it's a characterization not a fact. regardless of how reliable the source might otherwise be, the label is charged. given the guidance in the biography of living persons policy, it must be removed immediately. commie (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, per
Wikipedia:VANITYFAIR. It has been deemed a reliable source for use in the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
regardless of whether any source has been deemed a reliable source, editorials must be regarded with scrutiny. commie (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the Vanity Fair sources are editorials as far as I can tell EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's literally written by the editor commie (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is regarded to be a reliable source about popular culture topics. i don't believe it's authoritative about either politics or medical information. commie (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing we are guided by project policy & consensus, and not your personal feelings. Zaathras (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
your tone borders on incivility. the issue is that there is not consensus, and we are reading the same policies. commie (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been consensus for the current version for quite awhile. Your new and contrarian voice does not gainsay that. Good luck in your endeavors. Zaathras (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
consensus does not supersede NPOV. commie (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>Your new and contrarian voice
please keep this about the subject. it is not a personal disagreement but a disagreement about whether this article complies with the policy commie (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of understanding of policy is the subject at hands, sadly. Zaathras (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a watchlist, I do not need pings. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think my client filled that in. i'll be sure to look for it in the future. commie (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
verifiability has no bearing on NPOV. "conspiracy theorist" is not an objective fact. it's a characterization. i believe it should be removed entirely, but if it will not be (per the somewhat recent npov noticeboard discussion), then it should be couched, attributed, and taken out of wikivoice. commie (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been explained at length to other newbies. Please consult Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./FAQ as well as the archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Next time, consult the FAQ and the archives before repeating the same old refuted claims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes. i read the most recent NPOV noticeboard discussion as well. The issue is that name-calling in wikivoice is not neutral, and doing so hurts the credibility of the endeavor. and no amount of consensus can compromise npov. commie (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how it works. If someone is widely reported as a conspiracy theorist and there is similar reporting in reliable sources of them actually creating, repeating or pushing those theories, then there is no problem with Wikipedia using "conspiracy theorist" in Wikivoice. RFKJr is by no means the only person with a
WP:BLP that we refer to in those terms. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
i disagree. no matter who characterizes his claims this way, to do so is not neutral. in fact, by focusing again on reliable sources, a subset of policy positions that help establish verifiability, you are creating a red herring. it's not an issue of verifiability, it's an issue of neutrality. commie (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

commie, you fail to understand NPOV. At Wikipedia, "neutral" has a special meaning, not the typical meaning. It does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases.

"Neutral" in NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the common sense of the word. It does not mean without bias from sources, only without bias from editors. NPOV does not require that sources or content be without bias or be neutral.

Editors should remain neutral by not removing the bias found in RS. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so, and that is a very proper bias. Anything else would be dishonest. Wikipedia does not support dishonesty or whitewash it.

Editors are "neutral" when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not "move" or "balance" content to the center to keep an article "neutral". That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content.

I suggest you also read

WP:Disruptive. Yes, your continued insistance, in the face of massive opposition from many very experienced editors, is disruptive and not helpful. It's time to back away. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

the essay you linked flies in the face of the policy as written. commie (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it flies in the face of your misunderstood interpretation, and your interpretation flies in the face of how experienced editors understand it. I have been here since 2003 and helped write that policy. Many other editors here have been here a long time. You're kicking a dead horse. It's time to back away or risk getting blocked for disruption. You're wasting our time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'll be taking this higher. commie (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO! Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of my favorite songs. Zaathras (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&oldid=1220713084"