User talk:Kalem014

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as

contentious

. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Firefangledfeathers, I am genuinely perplexed by this response, and would appreciate any insight. The template message provided above seems a bit off topic given the edit under discussion was strictly biographical, and not a discussion of any pseudo- or fringe science itself.

Would you kindly let me know specifically which point in the revised biographical lead would you consider contentious? i.e., Which of the following facts are you contending with regard to the biography of RFK Jr.?

1. Full name Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954)

2. Was/is an American environmental lawyer

3. An activist

4. An author

5. A member of the Kennedy political family

6. A 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate.

7. Advocates for environmentalism, renewable energy, human rights, peace and free speech.

8. Well-known as an anti-vaccine activist

9. Criticized for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories

Perhaps rather than edit-warring and stonewalling, we can reach a true consensus up to WP guidelines.

I look forward to your response, thank you! Kalem014 (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kalem014. The Contentious Topics notices are basically saying "these topic areas are sensitive, so administrative action comes more swiftly and heavily; please be on your best behavior". As they say in the notice, they are not a sign that you've done anything wrong. I do think the changes you made worsen the article, and I've explained why at the article talk page. Let's keep that discussion there, but I'll briefly say that my issues were not about contention over specific facts, but over the manner and order of presentation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]