Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

does anyone know what's wrong with his voice?

He does a lot of speaking engagements; hence, he experiences periodical bouts of laryngitis.--68.40.194.155 08:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Laura Shue (laurashue at yahoodotcom)

He suffers from spasmodic dysphonia. See link for further information. -kyleg82

Too many drugs as a younger man!!!! <----to bad your mom didn't take more birth control.

I am not really sure how the troll remark contributes to a constructive discussion of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., but yes, he did experiment with drugs as a young teen and into his early adult years. But you know, as a child he learned about his father's death by watching his dad get gunned down in a pool of blood, LIVE, on national television, and even today Bobby jr. can't go anywhere without somebody shaking his hand and telling him,"Your father's the reason I got involved with politics." That's only flattering for about the first few hundred times you hear it; after that it's a continuous reminder of perhaps the most painful and tragic loss of your life. That having been said, RFK, jr. should be commended for straightening himself out and refusing to use his early losses as excuses. When you have been addicted to heroin and can emerge twenty years later a happily married family man with several meaningful causes to champion and tirelessly advocate for, then you can come back here and make flippant remarks about someone else's past mistakes.--68.40.194.155 08:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Laura Shue

Contraversy in Ecuador: In Joe Kane's book "Savages", heis quesnionable activities in dealing with native pouplations and selling them down the river to oil intrests is documented. would anyone consider adding some of this information to the article to balance out his claims to envirognmentalism?Die4Dixie 06:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to mention the battle he has with other environmentalists on the issue over the development of windmills in New England. -Amit

OK.

I mean, personally I think that "Amit" here just did a fine job of mentioning "the Battle," but apparently he doesn't feel like he did it any justice, so I'll be that someone and help him out.

There is an unconfirmed rumour that Bobby Jr has opposed the construction of some very large windmills in New England. --68.40.194.155 08:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Laura Shue

He mentioned in a recent speech that he did jail time in Puerto Rico. What's that about?

It was about Civil Disobedience. He and some fellow activists - including Edward James Olmos -were protesting the US Navy using the area as a practice site for bombing exercises.--68.40.194.155 08:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Laura Shue

I'm guessing the 'recent speech' is this: [1], which I just read and found really interesting. Should it perhaps be linked to at the bottom of the article? --Devnevyn 22:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Anybody who keeps their ear to the political grapevine knows damn well that this "battle" has absolutely nothing to do with support or opposition to alternative energy. Some key points:

• Wind farms can be placed anywhere, the wind inland is just as good as the wind on the coast. There is no need to stick them in places where they will be an eyesore.
• Wind farms could be placed 100-200 miles out to sea where it has less of a chance of disturbing fragile ecosystems and is not going to ruin any asthetics.
• Wind farms on private, rural farm land help to supplement family farmers' income, which is very much needed considering the state of the US family farm. Also, windmills fit in more asthetically with an agricultural setting.
• Look at who is behind the admendments to enact this wind farm - Senator Stevens and Representative Young, both of Alaska. Both of these men have terrible environmental voting records and are staunch supporters of drilling in ANWR. It is completely obvious that this is political "punishment" for the Kennedys' outspoaken and strong opposition to drilling in ANWR.

I think this is noteworthy because one might mistakenly assume that the Kennedys are opposed to wind power and/or are hyppocrites, when in reality they are opposing an attempt to retailiate against them. --Dragon695 19:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, wind farms cannot be placed just anywhere. Look at the map in the wind power article, Image:US wind power map.gif. The quality of available wind varies enormously by location. The area off the Massachusetts coast stands out as one of the best in the eastern U.S., and probably the best if proximity to energy consumers is factored in. Locating wind farms 100-200 miles out to sea would be much more expensive; the water is deeper and you need long underwater transmission lines to get the power to market. How much in higher electric rates should consumers be forced to pay to protect pristine views at the vacation homes of the rich? Finally Senator Stevens and Rep. Young are not supporting the Cape Wind project, they are helping Kennedy kill it. But you are right about one thing: Stevens and Young do have terrible environmental records.--agr 20:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The only picture on this page is of a somewhat tenuously-linked Hurricane Katrina - can we do better?

rfk is the typical limosine liberal phony. he speak about global warming and yet me makes money off if the very industry he critisizes. i added this fact. please do not remove it. Keltik31 14:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

More proof supporting my theory that all conservatives are idiots. I am removing the sentence from the article. 70.176.169.63 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

idiots? i would argue that those who pay attention to people like RFK when they talk about enviornmental issues are the idiots. this man makes money off of oil. then he goes around the country critisizing them and warning us of global warming? do you not see a contradiction here? his uncle Ted talks abhout gun control, but Ted Kennedy's own bodyguard was busted in the Capital building with two hand guns and a sub-machine gun. Kennedy would want someone like me to go to jail for that, but he did all he could to get the charges dropped. thanks to the NRA, they were. i am going to keep putting it back in because it is true. if the cowardly liberals like yourself cant handle the truth, that is your problem. Keltik31 14:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any source for the assertion that RFK, JR. receives "oil money". If it is true is should be posted but it should also be backed up. If it is not the statement is libelous.

it is in a book called "do as i say, not as i do". it is about how liberals, like rfk jr. go out and speak about things like the enviornment and then violate the very pricipals they profess to uphold. like how ralph nader is anti-corporate ameirica....and then ownes over two million in stock in american corporations. or how ted kennedy talks about not repealing the inheritance tax.....and then put his money into trusts so that the government cannot get it when he dies. rfk getting money from oil royalties is the same thing. Keltik31 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In Joe Kane's book "Savages", his questionable activities in dealing with native populations and selling them down the river to oil interests is documented. would anyone consider adding some of this information to the article to balance out his claims to environmentalism? If you like, I will be happy to dig the book out for chapter and verse citation if you do not care to purchase it.Die4Dixie

This has been a general problem on wikipedia for the past few months or years, but who gets to decide what's "wrong information"? A few years back everybody around here would have been ashamed to even consider using such a wording. And they were right. 77.191.75.203 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"They were right?" Since when do you get to decide this?

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. So, to answer your question: they get to decide.

If you find a reliable source that agrees with Kennedy's defamation of people who disagree with his crazy anti-science stance ("false claims both Anthony Fauci and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are trying to profit off a vaccine"), then you can come back and contest the word "false". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

82.22.50.242 (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

What you have written about RFK Jr is completely untrue! This man is one of thee most genuine trustworthy people on this planet that is trying to make this world a better and safer place for our children!! He is not a conspiracy theorist nor is he an anti vaxxer. He is pro life pro health pro safety for all ! Stop censoring the truth and making up bullshit lies!!!

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. Reactivate your request by setting the answered parameter in the {{edit semi-protected}} template back to no. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The terms "anti-vaccine activist" and "conspiracy theorist" are not references to the man's occupation(s). They are references to his opinions and political activities; to his personal life. As someone simply seeking more information about a person, as written the lead bio on Mr. Kennedy was not helpful.

I propose you eliminate the terms "conspiracy theorist" and "anti-vaccine activist" from the prominent position (or any position) as Mr. Kennedy's occupation. The discussions at length further below on the page detail the article author's views on Mr. Kennedy's personal opinions sufficiently clearly. --32.211.124.141 (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - You misunderstand the purpose of the article lead, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The lead provides an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. To rewrite the lead as you suggest, omitting any reference to Kennedy’s views on, and actions around, the issue of vaccination, would seriously mislead readers, which I’m sure was not your intention. KJP1 (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Follow up commentary on the use of these terms: Wiki should lead the universe in unbiased authorship. To lead with “conspiracy theorist” is to promote a biased view of one's major accomplishments; following this trajectory gives authors thereafter permission to use defamatory words like “crazy,” and “anti-____.” These words frames someone's whole life's work in a derogatory manner. He is a lawyer and activist, plain and simple. Let a reader decide for themselves if a person is crazy.

Related to that is my opinion that it is irresponsible to announce that all science debunks links between vaccines and major health issues. Studies appear in journals all the time contradicting the 100% safety of vaccines for 100% of the human population, 100% of the time. One simply has to do a little research to verify this. I have two studies on my desktop right now that contradict the safety of mRNA in the covid jabs:

Reaction of Human Monoclonal Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Proteins With Tissue Antigens: Implications for Autoimmune Diseases https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.617089

and

Segal Y, Shoenfeld Y. Vaccine-induced autoimmunity: the role of molecular mimicry and immune crossreaction. Cell Mol Immunol. 2018 Jun;15(6):586-594. doi: 10.1038/cmi.2017.151. Epub 2018 Mar 5. PMID: 29503439; PMCID: PMC6078966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkuha (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)