Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Political party

Political party Republican (2025- present) should be added ahead of time. 2604:3D09:D89:6D00:6427:A3D7:7EA3:80D1 (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a source that he's joined the Republican party, or intends to? Note that one doesn't need to be a member of a party to serve in its government. — Czello ^(music) 08:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

He's independent and hasn't continued to swap to Republicans like Gabbard did Envyforme (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr. is "not enrolled in a party" according to https://voterlookup.elections.ny.gov/. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Article now says Libertarian party, sourced from a November 14 tweet from the Libertarian party claiming Jr. as one of their own. However Jr. was a candidate of many parties, and I think noneof them were Libertarian. Jr. was rejected at the Libertarian convention, with only 2% of the vote. Absent any reliable secondary sourcing, and not even a statement from Jr. himself, I'm going to remove this. -- M.boli (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It's possible he had signed up but canceled after they parted ways, like Sanders.--Cbls1911 (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Current edit indicates that he's a Libertarian with a source, and the Chair Angela Mcardle claimed on an X space (https://x.com/ComicDaveSmith/status/1860865805006590365) that Jr. joined after their convention and became a lifetime member, so I guess maybe it counts now? The article probably has to include that info. Iliru (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this edit adding Libertarian party to the infobox was misguided.

• The source supports that the Libertarian party is claiming RFK Jr.
• The source notes only weak evidence that Jr. claims Libertarian affiliation, viz: an offhand remark that his appointment might be fulfilling Trump's promise to appoint a big-L Libertarian because he considers himself small-l libertarian.

The article says that Kennedy bought a membership in the party in order to try for the Libertarian nomination. He lost at the convention, with 2% of the vote. The party then forced him off the Libertarian ballot line in Colorado. The party is now claiming him as one of their own. So what? Jr. hasn't campaigned as a Libertarian, he has never represented the party for anything, the sources for Libertarian as his party affiliation all go back to the Libertarians claiming him, not the other way around. I think this is best removed. Pinging @David O. Johnson:, author of the edit in question. --M.boli (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough I guess, considering that and Jr. himself hasn't said anything about his party affiliation, it should probably stay as Independent until something notable happens once Trump takes office. Iliru (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Beginning of paragraph 2 of "Vaccines and autism claims" misuses source

The wiki page says "Kennedy and Children's Health Defense have falsely claimed that vaccines cause autism."

But the source cited doesn't say this, it says "Mr. Kennedy is chairman of the board of Children’s Health Defense. Its website ties the increase in chronic childhood conditions such as asthma, autism and diabetes to a range of factors, including environmental toxins, pesticides and vaccines."

This is an incorrect use of the source, really the website mentioned in the article is what should be cited but from the nyt article it's unclear if autism is being said to be linked to vaccines. Unless there's an actual source for this it should be be promptly removed LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• There are literally hundreds of reliable sources out there linking Kennedy/CHD to claims that vaccines cause autism. Here's the first one I found from Time magazine [1]. Black Kite (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is probably the best source for it since it has a direct quote

  Web archive of Washington examiner LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Also it's never sourced anywhere that Kennedy made the claim himself, only that children's health made the claim. Another reason to remove it. LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Citation citation added from FactCheck.org: What RFK Jr. Gets Wrong About Autism. -- M.boli (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Disinformation in Russian invasion of Ukraine template discussion

@M.boli You mentioned RFK Jr. has echoed propaganda memes in relation to Russia. This may be true, but the section on his stances of foreign affairs does not mention this anywhere, which is why I removed the template. It is mentioned he opposes intervention in the Russo-Ukrainian war, which is a stance more favorable to Russia, but there is no mention of this stance being active disinformation nor an implicit or explicit support of Russia. Let me know your take on this, thanks. Slothwizard (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

After thinking about it further, I'm on the fence a bit about including the see-also.

RFK Jr'.s claim about slaughter of Russians in Donbas comes directly from Russian disinfo. There is currently a wikilink within that paragraph to the Russian disinformation article. I saw this link (which admittedly is an easter egg) before re-inserting the see-also to Russian disinfo operations. But I should have checked further.

Other claims of his, e.g. the 2014 Revolution of Dignity was actually a U.S. coup against Ukraine, are also well-known Russian propaganda. But as you note there is no sourcing for that. Absent any sources in the article showing Jr. is repeating Russian propaganda the see-also link is probably OR and should go. I completely agree with you on that.

A short amount of google-searching does reveal a few sources. Here is one example, a WaPo fact check. These analyses linking RFK Jr. to Russian propaganda would need to be edited into the paragraph before the see-also is supported. And it might be complicated or the sources aren't good enough. So I'm a bit on the fence. Unless and until such sources are added, I'm OK with admitting a mistake and removal of the the see-also. -- M.boli (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! As it is currently worded, I will remove the see also. Let me know if anything Slothwizard (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2024

Please edit source number 240 to point to Robert F. Kennedy Jr: CIA, Power, Corruption, War, Freedom, and Meaning | Lex Fridman Podcast #388 at timestamp 1:55:55 Aboutzero (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: WaPo is a WP:SECONDARYSOURCE. A podcast is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. We prefer secondary sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Substituting one conspiracy theory for another?

It's sort of amazing that so many editors are being ignored or brushed off with comments like "discussed before". What I've seen is the major media with the multi-billion dollar covid vaccine industry behind them trying to silence "conspiracies" with their own conspiracy theory, lumping them all together under the label of "misinformation", knowing that if both views were given equal treatment it would result in millions of potential vaccine sales lost. Follow the money. The vaccine was quickly developed, in a matter of months, and foisted on the world without enough time to make thorough evaluations. Scores of doctors, including Florida State Surgeon General, and ex-Pfizer British scientist, Michael Yeadon, have expressed legitimate concerns over the covid vaccine and significant numbers of people have died or have experienced adverse effects. This is not theory but fact.

In any case, it is totally improper for the first sentence in the lede of a BLP to be asserting derogatory controversial opinion, cited by only one source.. Terms like "conspiracy theory" should be replaced with skeptical views, while the label of "misinformation" should be replaced with alternative views, esp since they have been expressed by many doctors and scientists. The campaign of censorship in what's supposed to be a free and open society, esp on Wikipedia, is troubling to say the least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yikes, no thank you. We will continue to refer to conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories. I just answered a comment below about the Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Note the article title name. "Scores" of doctors, even with your bolding, are still the minority and they are quite wrong. We won't give their conspiracy theories WP:FALSEBALANCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every long-standing editor who turned out of the blue to be an anti-science conspiracy crank, I would have...three nickels now, apparently. Been a while, admittedly. Silverseren^C 23:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If I had a nickle for every editor who resorted to personal attacks and making false accusations rather than engaging in honest debate I'd be a rich man. Please refrain from personal attacks and spreading misinformation that all skeptical or critical views have nothing to do with science. I'm sure errors have been made on both side of the fence, but to in effect claim that one side is perfect and the other is not presents its own conspiracy theory..-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Potentially being a Cabinet secretary doesn't suddenly make RFK Junior's views mainstream. Zaathras (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No one said that it did. BLPs, esp where it concerns controversial topics, are supposed to be neutrally worded. -- and before you claim that the reliable sources support your view please be reminded that a slanted POV can be advanced by only observing a given set of reliable sources that limit themselves to one particular view, which is how this article is written overall.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

and before you claim that the reliable sources support your view Well, that is kind of the inconvenient fact here. Reliable sources do support my view, and that is the end of the argument. Zaathras (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Not if many of the skeptical views have been censored, which they have. Sorry, trying to 'ace' the discussion in such a sweeping fashion doesn't wash. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If something has been "censored" from appearing in reliable sources, we can't report on it. That is one of our most basic content policies. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

doesn't wash It has been washed, dried, folded, and put away in the sock drawer. We're done here. Zaathras (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

"Florida State Surgeon General" As long as Ron DeSantis dominates the state policy, we can safely dismiss any Florida-affiliated source when it comes to scientific topics. The state is known for its censorship policies. Dimadick (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It's Joseph Ladapo, who holds anti-science views similar to Kennedy's. See SBM's take on him. Second take. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

So now a person in Ladapol's position, along with all of Florida's affiliated doctors and scientists, not to mention the University of Florida’s med school, are 'all' wrong too? Right.. So much for that hit-piece you linked to. Look at its language. Pew! People might give more credence to some of these contentions if they addressed particular points and issues, comprehensively. That the criticisms simply attempt to write off all skeptical and indifferent views -- across the board, with zero exceptions -- sort of tips their hand that they are merely motivated by partisan bias, esp now with Kennedy's views at the forefront -- and of course the anti-Trump fanatics line up and are eager to gobble all this stuff up without much cerebral intervention. Most of the American people didn't buy into the extremist rhetoric aimed at Trump, e.g. "nazi, racist, anti-human rights", bla, bla, so don't expect anyone but the choir you seem to be preaching to to take their claims seriously, while at the same time they censor all indifferent views coming from doctors and scientists as all "anti-science".

In any case, I'm glad to hear you say that you're opposed to censorship. The only one's being censored are the vaccine critics. For example, You Tube was pressured to remove any account expressing criticism about the hasty promotion of the experimental COVID vaccine, quickly developed and injected into into the market. It's really difficult to tell who is in the minority, as dissenting views are being widely censored on the internet and elsewhere.

As for questioning science, you should learn that this is a normal part of scientific research. It's not "anti-science" to question or be critical of scientists, who overall have made numerous mistakes. Or are we to assume those scientists promoting the vaccine are all perfect? They are not all knowing gods. Scientists routinely criticize or are skeptical with fellow scientists, so it's a little disappointing to see an editor blindly embracing their favorite version of science. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC).

No, pretending that a fraudulent paper is valid even years after it has been retracted, as Kennedy does, is not a normal part of scientific research. No, ignoring the fact that Thiomersal has been removed from vaccines long ago as well as the fact that the maladies one has claimed (without any evidence) it causes have not gone down since then is not a normal part of scientific research. And no, denying scientific results that do not fit into one's preconceived notions, using the excuse that the authors are part of "Teh Big Pharma Conspiracy" is not "skepticism". This has nothing to do with "anti-Trump". It has been known for several decades that Kennedy is wrong about everything connected with medicine, long before COVID, long before he left the Democrats, and long before he kissed the Don's ring. You should really read WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I've made a post at WP:ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talk • contribs) 03:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Not to hack at the flesh of a dead horse or whatever but like... they are conspiracy theories. Failing that, complete falsehoods. Blaming the COVID jab for the death of celebrities who died of natural causes at old ages (Hank Aaron), that whole thing about Bill Gates apparently trying to make money from a vaccine or cut off money from those who weren't vaccinated, tacit denial of the existence of HIV/AIDS, 5G altering human DNA, et cetera, et cetera. Sometimes you've gotta call a spade a spade, and a tinfoil hat a tinfoil hat. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Bias

The conspiracy theory section has a blatant, uncited “chemtrails do not exist”, i am not here to argue one side or the other, but maybe it should be removed unless its sourced? Jaybainshetland (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Chemtrails do not exist and we won't provide WP:FALSEBALANCE by suggesting that they could. (The comments on chemtrails are indeed sourced.) – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, i am not here to argue one side or the other, but shouldn’t their at least be a credible source? Jaybainshetland (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It is sourced at the end of the paragraph, but if that's not enough, there are dozens more available in Chemtrail conspiracy theory, if you feel the need to add them. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Change lead sentence description from "politician" to "former political candidate"

Why is Kennedy described as a politician in the lead? He's never held political office and has run for office for a total of 4 months out of his entire career. If the politics should be mentioned in the lead sentence, it should be "former political candidate". --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per our article at politician, A politician is a person who participates in policy-making processes, usually holding a position in government. He fits that definition, especially if he's confirmed at HHS. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu. He doesn't though. That's more crystal-ball territory, given he hasn't even been confirmed, much less involved in any gov. position or policy-making. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

He definitely does. He's headed an anti-vaccine advocacy group for decades. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

But that's not a political office? Are you considering any sort of advocacy group a political post? --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You are 100% correct and RFK Jr. should not be described as "politician" on this article. I do not know why Muboshgu thinks that heading an advocacy group makes one a politician. Del Bigtree is not described as a politician, despite likewise heading an anti-vaccine advocacy group for almost a decade.

Muboshgu's first argument was unfortunately WP:CRYSTALBALL territory, and second one was based on RFK Jr. leading an anti-vaccine advocacy group, which does not hold water because it is not applied to any other chairmen of advocacy groups. This would narrow down Muboshgu's case that heading an advocacy group for at least a decade makes one a politician - well, not a workable definition. Brat Forelli🦊 01:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. You said it better than I did! The example I was thinking of was Ingrid Newkirk of PETA. She's advocated for initiatives/laws/etc. for decades, yet is not considered a politician since she's a nonprofit activist. I don't see any difference between Newkirk and Kennedy in that regard. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)