Jump to content

Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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.
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.
(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)

Comments

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

I provided four examples in my vote. TFD (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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.

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  • #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) —
    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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
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)
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)
Then provide an alternative? I think it is fair and just. Envyforme (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not do alternative facts, and if "fair and just" means that grifters and loons (like the ones whose false claims Kennedy lawyers for) get the same standing as experts, the Wikipedia does not do that either. Read WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2024 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2024

Remove "conspiracy theorist" from RFK Jr's attributes as this makes unproven assumptions about what the Democratic view of a conspiracy theorist is. If he is an anti-vaccination advocate, that is his position, and appropriate to add as an attribute. A conspiracy theorist, however, is a broad derogatory term used here to make Democrats believe he is not on their side. It would be fair to list his specific positions/beliefs on policies and world/national matters. Please maintain your non-political stance and remove that verbiage. 2601:40D:8000:B910:4C5F:C1CC:1ACC:5280 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

No, according to many reliable sources (RS), he pushes many disproven conspiracy theories. Look up some of the RS found right after these words in the lead "and public health conspiracy theories". We document what RS say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

"The Courage to Face COVID-19" is not a book by RFK, Jr.

"The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio–Pharmaceutical Complex" is by John Leake and Peter A. McCullough. Not sure why it's listed as a notable work by RFK Jr. He isn't an author on it. That should be removed. Questionheir (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

After doing an internet search on that book, it appears that you are correct, Kennedy is not an author on it. Not sure why it was listed on this page, it has now been removed. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

3rd paragraph of this section. Change:

> wrongly claiming that all casualties of the Donbas War between 2014 and 2022 (about 14,000) were Russian civilians.

to:

> claiming that most of the casualties of the Donbas War between 2014 and 2022 (about 14,000) were Russians.

Why?

Fuller quote from the same source: "The Donbas region, which is 80% ethnic Russian — and Russians that were being systematically killed by the Ukrainian government ..."

Article currently states, citing same source[1], using a smaller portion of this exact same quote:

> wrongly claiming that all casualties of the Donbas War between 2014 and 2022 (about 14,000) were Russian civilians. He said that Russians living there "were being systematically killed by the Ukrainian government".[1]

There is no indication of Kennedy stating what the Wiki article attributes to him. Regardless of whether his claims of "80% ethnic Russians" are correct, he did not "wrongly claim that all casualties are Russian". Not to mention a stark difference between ethnicity and citizenship, which are mistakenly conflated in this paragraph. The phrasing "Russian civilians" is also questionable and infers something that Kennedy didn't say(though probably meant, meaning that they were non-combatants) Conciseman (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: In fact, the source clearly presents the quote from RFK Jr. “We [the United States] put a new government in [Ukraine] that immediately makes a civil war against the Russian population of Donbas, bans the Russian language, kills 14,000 of them..." That claim is false, and indeed claims that all 14,000 he's referring to were Russian civilians. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, the freshly-added source [2] does feature this quote. Thanks to whoever found and added it, as it does more clearly indicate the distorted perception [of Kennedy's]. Not just in this particular matter, but in the overall recap of the 2014-2022 events in Donbass. Conciseman (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b https://unherd.com/2023/05/robert-kennedy-jr-america-needs-a-revolution/
  2. ^ https://www.polygraph.info/a/fact-check-robert-kennedy-jr-repeats-russia-s-false-justification-for-ukraine-war-/7138506.html

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2024

Anti Vax is an absurd title, say pro safe vaccine, or vaccine activist and anti vax as a job is just incorrect, if you guys really want to put legit research which a encyclopedia is supposed to, fix something to what is true 2601:601:601:2930:71F7:5638:DABB:8133 (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Reliable sources disagree with your opinion. Reliable sources win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Split "Political positions" into separate page?

I made a similar suggestion on the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign page, which has a similar "political positions" section that is getting a bit lengthy - and has different information vs. the section on this page. Should this be spun off into a separate page, like it is for other political candidates. The section on this page can remain with a few paragraphs summarizing key positions, then linking off to the main article. Thoughts? Sk5893 (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

We the People Party Affiliation should be added to page

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Party Dennisconsorte (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Biased/Unnecessary Information - Edit Request

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s wiki page has unnecessary and biased information included. I don’t see a reason why he is listed as an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist.To me, that shows ignorance and bias. His page also goes on to state this: 

Since 2005, Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine misinformation 6 and public health conspiracy theories, including the scientifically disproven claim of a causal link between vaccines and autism

I really don’t see why this information should be included on a person’s wiki page. These topics are divisive, and it seems to me that the person who last edited his page may have let their bias get the best of them. I see the responses keep saying that the “reliable” sources being used list Robert as these things. Can I suggest using “reliable” sources from all backgrounds and not those that have the same views/interests?

I request that this information be removed from the page, unless Robert himself requested this to be in there.

Thanks 2600:8800:8E81:EA00:25BF:A2A0:8992:6D2D (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's one of the things he is best known for in the past two decades. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In February 2022, RFK Jr tried the first vaccine case at the state level in United States history

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Talk:Career

I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but I'd like to suggest an IMPORTANT ADDITION to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s "Career" section.

In February 2022, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. led a team of attorneys in the first negligence-based vaccine case to go to trial at the state level in United States History.

The trial, styled "William Yates Hazelhurst, By and Through his Conservator Rolf G.S. Hazlehurst v. E. Cartlon Hayes, M.D. and The Jackson Clinic Professional Association," took place at the Madison County Circuit Courthouse in Jackson, Tennessee, and began on February 2, 2022, and ended on February 18, 2022. Senior Judge William B. Acree, Jr. presided over the trial.

On February 18, 2022, the jury sided with the defense and found that Dr. Hayes and The Jackson Clinic Professional Association were not liable for Mr. Hazlehurt's medical injury.

Source 1: Tennessee Jury Verdict Reporter - https://www.juryverdicts.net/TN7-22.pdf

Source 2: I also have copies of various orders from the trial.

Let me know if you'd like more information. Survivor200 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that covers it. See WP:RS. Zaathras (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Addition & Revision Requests

Addition request: He was the first to successfully sue Monsanto Co. for their cancer-causing RoundUp. He defended school groundskeeper Dwayne Johnson in Johnson vs Monsanto Co. (1) (2)

Revision request: The statement that Children’s Health Defense (CHD) spreads misinformation is incorrect. The website sources clinical, peer-reviewed evidence that’s published on industry-respected medical platforms. These sources are cited within each claim/article/information statement (4) (5). The website also hosts a searchable database of scientific literature (3), the results of which include direct links to, again, sources subject to peer-review on clinical publishing platforms such as pubmed (6) (7), mdpi (8), Frontiers in Immunology (9) (10), & more. Furthermore, the CDC’s own Pinkbook admits many modern-day outbreaks were among the vaccinated, such as Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) (11) & poliovirus (12), for example.


1. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2020/a155940.html

2 https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/10/health/monsanto-johnson-trial-verdict/index.html

3. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/research-database/?section=Research+Articles

4. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/vaccine-secrets/video-chapters/vaccines-contain-dangerous-ingredients-small-doses-can-be-unhealthy-disease-is-a-product-of-genetics-and-environment/

5. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/emr/emf-wireless-health-impacts/

6. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Do-vaccines-increase-or-decrease-susceptibility-to-diseases-other-than-those-they-protect-against_-PubMed.pdf

7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36625174/

8. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Dysautonomia-Following-Tetanus-Diphtheria-and-Pertussis-Vaccine-Tdap-The-First-Case-of-Extreme-Cachexia-Caused-by-Autoimmune-Inflammatory-Syndrome-Induced-by-Adjuvants-ASIA-Syndrome-in-a-Human.pdf

9. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1242380/full

10. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/BNT162b2-COVID-19-vaccination-in-children-alters-cytokine-responses-to-heterologous-pathogens-and-Toll-like-receptor-agonists.pdf

11. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/hib.html

12. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/polio.html 2600:1005:B19E:8789:A859:258E:A486:A01E (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the Monsanto-mention in the article, and some mention of the outcome of the lawsuits wouldn't be unreasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Nature conservation activist

Hi, as regards this reversal of my edit by @Muboshgu: - how does my edit violate MOS:ROLEBIO? Sure, there is slightly more sources that describe him as "Robert+F.+Kennedy"+"anti-vaccine+activist" than "Robert+F.+Kennedy"+"environmental+activist" , but it is not a categorical difference - and since the latter is more significant across his entire career, I do not see why it should be excluded.

The current version gives the sense that although he has trained and practiced as an environmental lawyer, his primary political focus has been anti-vaccine disinformation, which is not really the case and in fact seems non-neutral, as if intended to minimize and discredit his work as a whole. --MASHAUNIX 09:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ROLEBIO says in part The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. RFK Jr is notable for his bloodlines, his environmental activism, and his antivaccine activism. Not for nature conservation. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
So are you saying playing a lead role in restoring the hudson river is not considered nature conservation? If not, could you please provide an example of what would fit that description so we can better understand your reversal of the edit? Concerned.citizen37 (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Lede weasel

I think this edit to the lede added weasel-words. Several reverts have ensued, so probably time to discuss on talk page. What do people think? -- M.boli (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's the actions of a lone edit-warrior who will probably just see a topic ban if they persist. Nothing to really discuss. Zaathras (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with you. It's fairly well-described in reliable sources as being this rather than being "widely described" so I think it's grand as it is. Going to courtesy ping @Logawinner: as this concerns their version. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Did anything happened while I was gone? I did research on the general consensus and sources. The original version is objectively correct considering that. Logawinner (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep researching and you will discover the sky is generally considered as blue and the sun is widely described as rising in the east. That's the problem with your edit. -- M.boli (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense that there is a better way to go about this and a potentially better way to word it. I will just ask the appropriate people and let that decision be made. Logawinner (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Note that Logawinner may be canvassing users to come to the discussion, [5] and [6]. Zaathras (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Not surprising. A user hiding for months and active only in very specific, unrelated topics discovered his fan-love to RFK Jr.
Nothing to be done here, another useless waste of bytes "discussing" it. --Julius Senegal (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
After further research into the topic and reading of this article as suggested by the users I asked for guidance. It appears that this article errs on the side of fairness. Inherent bias will occur even on trusted sources but our job is not to interpret those sources but to present them in a proper manner free of our own biases. Some may question the location of certain information but it does not appear to be misallocated for the purpose of bias. This article is not vandalized as some seem to be claiming. The irony is that for the claimed purpose of eliminating bias it is being vandalized with their own biases. We use sources, not hunches or beliefs, this has come full circle from by time on the religious side of English Wikipedia. Thank you for this re-examination. Logawinner (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I will add my voice to people saying that "widely considered" is at best redundant and at worst starts to blur the line between knowledge and belief. He is in fact an advocate against vaccines and so in fact is his organization and these facts are all verifiable across reliable sources across time. We should not demote facts to "widely considered". Jorahm (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2024

The following sentence should be removed with no replacement: "Since 2005, Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine misinformation[6] and public health conspiracy theories,[7] including the scientifically disproven claim of a causal link between vaccines and autism. This sentence should be removed because it is not true. It states, "the scientifically disproven claim of a causal link between vaccines and autism." It has neither been proven, nor disproven. No one knows what causes autism, but it most likely is caused by a myriad of factors. No one knows what all of those factors are. You can say, 'I don't think the vaccines have any impact,' but that has not been scientifically proven. It could be a a very small factor, or none at all. BUT WE DO NOT KNOW. There not enough scientific evidence to support or deny the possibility of a casual relationship.23:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)23:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)~~Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). 2600:1702:2212:5000:A076:E94F:D97D:7A97 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the FAQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2024

This article is incredibly biased. Robert F. Kennedy Jr is not a "conspiracy theorist" and it is biased terminology to label him as such. He has had views challenging the preconceptions of vaccination, and that is it. Everything that is *thoroughly* cited in this article can remain, however, the "conspiracy theorist" comment is unneeded and peddles a biased viewpoint. 104.181.35.198 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the FAQ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2024

The first sentence in this page refers to Kennedy as an “anti-vaccine activist” which is a simplification that I believe has misled many people on his beliefs and hurt his campaign recently. Kennedy supports the established vaccines, like for mumps and tetanus for example. He only wanted a little more research on the COVID vaccine. The phrase “anti-vaccine advocate” makes it seem like he is against many vaccines, and that it is a major part of his platform, but it’s not, and does not need to be mentioned in the first sentence or any phrased this way. So, what I am asking if that that phrase be removed. 24.171.1.89 (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: He has made false statements about the efficacy of the measles and tetanus vaccines too, actually. It is his platform. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
You are clearly biased, should you recuse yourself from managing this article? Why would someone be labeled "any-vax" for questioning "official" numbers regarding efficacy of a drug? We should question everything, right? JoshMcCullough (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2024

I request that wikipedia add in nuance and 'other points of view' about RFK JR's stances, and not just blatantly say that he is a conspiracy theorist. He has also never called himself anti-vax, but rather pro-vaccine safety. A lot of the news agencies and organizations that claim RFK JR are this things, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry (source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440632/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-to-consumer_advertising#:~:text=Under%20the%20Medicines%20Act%20of,consumer%20advertising%20of%20prescription%20medications.)

A large number of people believe that he should not be ostracized by bringing up certain facts that are often swept under the rug with the pretense that he is just crazy, when a lot of his points are true: 1) we are the only country on earth besides New Zealand that legally allows the pharmaceutical industry to advertise direct to consumer, because then they can control the narrative of the media, which they have done to assassinate RFK's character over the last several years. 2) Many of the public health agencies (CDC, FDA, NIH, etc.) are funded by the exact same regulatory agencies that are supposed to regulate them (with revolving doors between executives at these pharma companies and positions in the regulatory agencies), creating a clear conflict of interest that illustrates the corrupt merger between state and corporate power (https://www.pogo.org/investigations/fda-depends-on-industry-funding-money-comes-with-strings-attached#:~:text=This%20arrangement%20gives%20the%20pharmaceutical,form%20of%20higher%20drug%20prices.). 3) The fact that these same pharmaceutical companies have paid an absurd and quite frankly disheartening amount of criminal fines in the tens of billions (https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/industry/pharmaceuticals) for deceptive marketing practices, falsifying data, hurting patients, but yet, these same pharmaceutical companies have complete immunity from liability for vaccines. If they are all so safe and effective, why do they need unlimited immunity from liability. The argument according to NIH is that "A manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by a nondefective product due to its inherent or unavoidable dangerousness" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216813/) But yet, to question if big pharma is doing enough to make their vaccines safe, the same companies that have paid billions of dollars in criminal fines for making unsafe products for money at the expense of consumers, when they have absolutely zero liability for any damages, should make it appropriate that some questions be raised. But yet, to do so makes you an "anti-vaxer", even though, again, NIH's own reasoning is that they are "inherent or unavoidably dangerous".

These are just a few of the many real arguments as to why there is more nuance in this "conspiracy Theory" "Anti-Vax" label that wikipedia has simply stuck onto Kennedy, a presidential nominee. It appears bias and 100% in line with the mainstream media narrative. If I understand, Wikipedia is information for the people by the people, and the nuance of Kennedy's arguments about our system of public health should be acknowledged. 2600:1700:2DFB:EC10:C154:1F4F:AB3:DA84 (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the FAQ. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Your FAQ itself is biased. Where's the FAQ for the FAQ? Stop writing this off as a non-issue, it's a big issue. JoshMcCullough (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "sexual assault allegations"

The text "While he did not deny the encounters with Cooney" is misleading. He did not _confirm or deny_ the allegations. Also, starting this sentence with "while" makes it sound like "he didn't deny it but .... ya know". As if he confirmed it in the second half of the sentence. JoshMcCullough (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Reworded and shortened. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
This edit appears to be more even to me, thanks. JoshMcCullough (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
It is fascinating to watch how quickly somebody reverts the page when something as simple as grammar is corrected. Taram (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
You didn't correct the grammar. Kennedy doesn't spread information, he spreads misinformation. The type of misinformation he spreads is anti-vaccine misinformation. It's a term used by hundreds of scholarly sources and news articles without any apparent confusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Reference to Vanity Fair article

The reference to the July 2024 Vanity Fair article is questionable given that the article has already been proven to be partial fabricated. For instance, VF claims that Kennedy is eating a dog, when it's actually cabrito, a cuisine made of goat. This brings into question whether the other points in the article have any merit. JoshMcCullough (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Has the article been called into question do we have a source for this? WP:VANITYFAIR. Moxy🍁 23:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Claiming that because one item was misconstrued means the entire article has to be tossed is the basest of logical fallacies. Be better. Zaathras (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Zaathras, to which logical fallacy are you referring and what to what invalid point Taram (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Fallacy fallacy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Kennedy Is Not An "Anti-Vaxer" Nor a Conspiracy Theorist

Advise why he is labeled as an "Anti-Vaxer" and conspiracy theorist. 216.201.233.62 (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Because he is. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
See "Frequently asked questions" at the top of this page. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
It sounds like those in power here are quite happy to leave these value-laden terms in place, even though they clearly paint a picture of bias. It has been spelled out clearly all over this talk page, but they seem to be too arrogant to admit it and actually change the article -- or their actual goal is to paint RFK Jr. in a negative light in order to sway people not to vote for him (e.g. election tampering).
I guess my teachers in college were right, Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source for information. JoshMcCullough (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. The one-sided bullies on RFK, jr's page (today especially) exemplify why WP can never be used as a valid source of information. Taram (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. I believe wholeheartedly that his skepticism needs to be clearly mentioned in this article, as it is important for voters to know about. The first half of this article calls him a conspiracy theorist multiple times. This description is clearly biased or uneducated as to his actual stances.
Put what he actually believes in as a part of the article, and allow readers to assign their own labels to him. 216.237.237.209 (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Read the FAQ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this comment. This Wikipedia description of RFK Jr. is not true. Listen to a long form interview of him discussing his stance with vaccines and why he is skeptical about his uncle’s and father’s murders, he has very rational and unbiased thinking. He is NOT anti-vax. He is NOTa conspiracy theorist. This needs to be fact checked ASAP! 2600:6C40:7D00:670A:FC75:6626:886F:84ED (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Read the FAQ. It is irrelevant that he has succeeded to fool you. We follow reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Wow bringing up the JFK and RFK assassination conspiracy theories to claim that RFK Jr isn't a conspiracy theorist? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 July 2024

Change “ also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist. He is the chairman and founder of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group that is a leading proponent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation” to “also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, author, and political activist. He is known for his work on environmental issues, particularly in advocating against pollution and promoting clean energy. He is the chairman and founder of Children's Health Defense, a campaign to address childhood chronic disease and toxic exposures.” 2601:644:8501:97B0:F561:5A14:AE6F:6E7 (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Extended-confirmed-protected edit requests are for uncontroversial changes like typos or factual errors, not for whitewashing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2024

Remove the label in the main description of this candidate as a "conspiracy theorist". Having alternative opinions should not make one a conspiracy theorist, and Wikipedia should be neutral. Zzcas (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the FAQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

Kenedy is not anti vaccine, and he Is not a conspiracy theriost. 98.20.239.229 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the FAQ. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

RFK Jr is not anti-Vax, he's been all for vaccines except for the covid vaccine, which is understandable with all the controversy around them; including hundreds of people collapsing and having heart defects after receiving it. 75.90.101.166 (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: What you have written is not true. Read the FAQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Auto-archiving period

Please extend the auto-archiving period (from the current 14 days). Drsruli (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The Wiki stating that 'Since 2005, Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine misinformation', is in itself misinformation.

The citations #6 merely reference articles claiming his views as being misinformation, with no support for why they are misinformation. Laughably, the citation of CCDH 2020 article's claims of covid vaccine efficacy has since been found to be measurably false and in that source the CCDH cites claims of covid deaths being overstated as misinformation. Uh, many jurisdictions have since quietly significantly revised downward their previously reported covid-caused deaths. The misinformation was actually the claims of misinformation cited in the article. Oh the irony. Please remove misinformation about misinformation lol. 2600:8800:2394:8900:854C:DBA5:9881:9E35 (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant. Come back when you have reliable sources for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Start with this citation. Santa Clara County revises total COVID deaths by over 20% - San José Spotlight (sanjosespotlight.com). So as I stated, the wiki as of now cites RFK Jr.'s claim that covid-19 deaths were being overstated as 'misinformation.' Well, here is evidence that he was correct. It was not misinformation. This wiki is misinformation and is still standing. 2600:8800:2394:8900:854C:DBA5:9881:9E35 (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@HobGadling, please tell me why this Biden statement is not spreading Covid-19 misinformation: [7]https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-2021-video-saying-vaccinations-prevent-covid-resurfaces-1726900 2600:8800:2394:8900:854C:DBA5:9881:9E35 (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
You appear to be equating one video about Biden with two decades of medical misinformation by Kennedy, not just limited to COVID19 (thimerosal, fake autism links, ADHD etc, and that's before we get started on the AIDS and gender dysphoria nonsense). Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The wiki article states rather prominently and specifically that RFK Jr promotes Covid-19 misinformation. Now you're talking about a history that has nothing to do with covid-19. One, the covid-19 misinformation claimed has actually been proven to be an incorrect claim, but still stands in the Wiki despite that fact. Two, in addition to the actual misinformation I cited in the Biden video, you can add the proven disinformation that having been vaccinated you can't spread covid, that wearing a mask prevents covid transmission, and 6' distancing mitigates transmission. By your own admission, Biden in the one video cited, has indeed spread covid-19 misinformation and thusly should be the one bearing this biographical entry. 2600:8800:2394:8900:854C:DBA5:9881:9E35 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
If you've something to add to the Joe Biden article, you should probably head over to Talk:Joe Biden because this talk page is not for discussing what should be added to other pages. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The content of Wikipedia articles is based on what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say "RFKJ spreads disinformation", the article says RFKJ spreads disinformation.
The content of Wikipedia articles is not based on Wikipedia editors comparing notes on who said what: "hmmm... let us check whether person X said something I disagree with... he did, so it is unfair to say person Y spreads disinformation!" That would be silly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Your opinion on what can be concluded from reliable sources is irrelevant. Come back when you have reliable sources actually saying that RFKJ does not spread misinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Should we consider...

...getting rid of the "He is not anti-vaccine/conspiracy theorist/XYZ, you are slandering him/paid agents of Biden agenda/etc" comments on sight, with a pointer towards the FAQ? Dunno if there's any specific policies (though I've seen similar about descriptors in the lede of other pages) but we've had this debate endlessly, a RfC found consensus for it and we have a FAQ section for a reason. I've seen it done on similar pages where these discussions go round in circles (e.g. Talk:Graham Linehan) and it might save us the constant rigmarole. Thoughts? — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree and had made my own edit request for the same issue. It needs to be fixed 69.125.75.117 (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@Ser!: I don't think the IP here got your meaning, but I do agree we should remove these type of comments on sight, like when we remove some Jan 6-related comments to Trump-related articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
True, it is currently a vast influx of the same bots and Kennedy-Fanboys. They wouldn't read the FAQ anyway. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Vaccine misinformation

It states that Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist. This is incorrect and misleading by itself. He is portrayed as so because he wants to put regulations on new vaccines to make sure they are safe. He himself and all his children are vaccinated. 69.125.75.117 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We go by how reliable sources characterize RFK's vaccine beliefs, not your personal bias. Zaathras (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
These reliable sources are wrong than, It’s not that hard to see. Go to NPR, Reuters, or AP for reliable sources, not The New Yorker, CNN, and Fox. If you want reliable sources for why I believe it should be changed, I will give you several. 69.125.75.117 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Please provide them and how you think they should be used, IOW the exact quotes from each that you feel are relevant. Then we'll have something to really discuss. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
NPR, Reuters, AP News. Here they are:
  • NPR: Bond, Shannon (2023-07-13). "RFK Jr. is building a presidential campaign around conspiracy theories". NPR.
  • Reuters: Sullivan, Andy (2023-04-19). "Vaccine critic Robert Kennedy Jr launches US Democratic presidential bid". Reuters.
  • AP: Smith, Michelle R.; Swenson, Ali (2023-07-31). "RFK Jr. says he's not anti-vaccine. His record shows the opposite. It's one of many inconsistencies". AP News. Retrieved 2024-08-05.
Anti-vaccine activism is RFK Jr.'s profession, it is what he does for a living (before he started running for president full time). Suggest you read the RFK Jr. article and references, you might learn something. -- M.boli (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Listen to his words
Calling for increased testing of vaccines and noting that they are not subjected to the same increased standards that other drugs are by the FDA, does not make him anti-vaccine. I would hope that Wikipedia editors would try to at least report not only information from “trustworthy” sources but from the individual the article is LITERALLY written about.
And I’m not some conspiracy theorist who thinks that the mainstream media is out to brainwash us. We all have biases. It’s not a big deal. We need to think for ourselves and trust others. But if those sources say I didn’t pay my taxes, and I say I did, and show proof I did, then that should count for more than whatever source you are referencing. If it doesn’t then you are just pushing an agenda 2600:1700:71E0:2BE0:34D3:A29C:1D21:9F55 (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Actions speak louder than words. Theknightwho (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
You pick some of his words to draw your own conclusions. That is not how Wikipedia works. See WP:PRIMARY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Neutral tone

This article discusses a controversial presidential candidate but does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards, especially in the introductory paragraphs.

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."[1]

1) It is advisable to avoid using loaded language such as "anti-vaccine activist" or "conspiracy theorist" at the beginning. Such terms can be perceived as judgmental labels. Instead, describe his positions objectively, for example, "has expressed skepticism about vaccine safety" or "has promoted theories questioning the mainstream COVID-19 narrative."

2) Focus on factual claims that can be sourced and attributed, rather than making definitive statements about what constitutes "misinformation." For instance, instead of declaring his group as "a leading proponent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation," you could say something like "His advocacy group has made claims challenging the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, which have been disputed by public health authorities."

3) Offer balanced coverage by including information about his background, qualifications, and stated motivations, not just presenting opposition viewpoints. This approach allows readers to form their own evaluations.

4) Use reputable sources that represent a diverse range of perspectives when attributing claims and viewpoints. It is important to note that even experts can have political biases.

In the 1968 election, Walter Cronkite's famous neutral delivery of news in relation to George Wallace serves as a suitable example. I recommend that this article maintain a more neutral tone, particularly in the introductory paragraphs. Wikipedia should remain impartial and not favor any specific political viewpoint. Mfrittman (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The key part of the quoted policy is "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The policy does not mean we whitewash things. The reliable sources call him an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
When covering controversial topics or public figures expressing views that are disputed by mainstream sources, it is preferable to represent the claims objectively and attribute them to the sources making those claims, rather than using potentially loaded language or appearing to take a stance on the accuracy of the claims. The goal should be to inform readers about the existence of the controversial viewpoints without endorsing or condemning them through subjective characterizations. Mfrittman (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
We do represent the claims objectively. They are objectively false. Suggesting otherwise would be misinforming our readers. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
His views may be false but that does not make someone a conspiracy theorist and you know that. The term is inappropriate and gives a specific image on Kennedy's character. Specifically, one that wears tin foil hats and tries to convince people that lizard people live in the white house. 153.231.10.14 (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Reliable sources call him that. It does not matter that you disagree with them. This is Wikipedia. Reliable sources win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a discussion. Children might be led to believe that there are winners and losers on everything including grammar. Those who become genuine adults have learned to converse in order to find a kernel of truth and concensus in discussion. Taram (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Information is one thing, and misinformation is another thing. Replacing a word with a specific meaning by another word with a different meaning is not within the scope of grammar. You should consult WP:1AM ánd probably also WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
An informative reply as "You should consult WP:1AM ánd probably also WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)" adds far more to attempts to get at kernels of truth through discussion as adults than does the childish suggestion that encyclopedic editors "win" a battle as when you wrote "Reliable sources win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)." Keep leaning into genuine discussion. Taram (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about, but it sounds as arrogant and content-free as your last contribution. Stop it. This is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Hob Gadling and Muboshgu are being very disingenuous in their discussions on this topic. They do not provide cogent arguments at all. A "reliable" source can be completely biased and spread false claims in their discussions with media outlets. As a result, making the claim in this thread that "reliable" sources win and therefore we will label something according to this one specific source does not hold any substance. Another "reliable" source can easily be cited which has stated the complete opposite view. Nnova13 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
You call them 'reliable sources', I call them biased sources who 'created terms and labels' that misrepresent Mr. Kennedy's actual views. I can not locate one place going back to 1970 in my extensive research of this presidential candidate, where Kennedy himself ever says anything 'other than' he wants 'safe vaccines' that are 'properly tested'. So he is technically not anti-vaxx, he is a 'safe vaccine activist'. The mainstream media repeating the term 'anti-vaxx' over and over again, does not make it true.
Is it a conflict of interest if the media outlets, and government (NIH) receive more than 50% of their AD revenues and budgets from Big Pharma, and Kennedy is an attorney who sues Big pharma and those agencies for a living? So where are your 'reliable sources' getting their info? Did they just create those labels out of thin air to appease their pharmaceutical clients? Show me an 'original source' where kennedy says he is against 'all vaccines'. Just one.
“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 -Thimeriosal book (2015)
“They passed the vaccine act in 1986. And the vaccine act gave immunity from liability to all vaccine companies, if you, for any injury, for negligence. No matter how negligent you are, no matter how reckless your conduct, no matter how toxic the ingredient, how shoddily tested or manufactured the product, no matter how grievous your injury, you’re a vaccine company, you cannot be sued. This was a huge gift for this industry cause the biggest cost for every medical product is downstream liabilities. And all of a sudden, those disappeared. So you’re not only taking a way that cost, and incentivizing many new vaccines, your also dis-incentivizing, you’re removing the incentive to make them safe. No matter how dangerous they are, they don’t care, because they can’t be sued.”….  EAU vaccines “exempt from pre-licensing safety. They don’t have to be tested, and they’re not!” – RFK Jr (2023)
“That’s not true… What I have said is vaccines, I’m not anti-vaccine. I think vaccines should be subjected to the same level of rigorous testing as other medications. And that is my only position.  I fought to get mercury out of fish for 40 years, and nobody called me anti-fish. I’m not anti vaccines just because I want safe vaccines. I think everybody wants safe vaccines, and as we all now recognize, the covid vaccines were neither safe, nor effective.” - RFK JR link
“I am fearlessly Pro vaccine, I wanna see, I’ve had all six of my children vaccinated, I wanna see everybody taking their vaccines, we need full coverage. People don’t take them because they no longer believe in the CDC, cause they can see the science! We spent three years looking at every peer reviewed science publication ever written on Thimerosal. We found over 500 peer reviewed publications, all of them say it is the most potent neurotoxin that is not radioactive, why… it's 30 times more toxic than lead. Why would we put that in childrens, a child, or pregnant woman if we didn’t have too. And we’ve already been shown by its removal from the pediatric vaccines, that we have good alternatives, we don’t need it anymore.” - RFK JR (2014)
In a 2023 interview link Lex Fridman asked: "You’ve talked about that the media slanders you by calling you an anti-vaxxer, and you’ve said that you’re not anti-vaccine, you’re pro safe vaccine. Difficult question, can you name any vaccines that you think are good? And RFKJ's response was : "I think some of the live virus vaccines are probably averting more problems than they’re causing."
If he were anti-vaxx he would not say 'some of the live viruses are good'. Pantress (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh he denied that he's an anti-vaxxer when asked directly? WP:MANDY applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Do you need a URL? Taram (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
No thanks, I have plenty. Such as "RFK Jr. says he’s not anti-vaccine. His record shows the opposite. It’s one of many inconsistencies" by NPR and "RFK Jr: How anti-vaccine misinformation has shaped his 'truth-teller' candidacy" by BBC. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Why did you ask, Mandy, "Oh he denied that he's an anti-vaxxer when asked directly? WP:MANDY applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)" since you had prejudged what you would believe and allow written when you replied to the question about needing a citation for that status when you wrote, "No thanks, I have plenty. Such as 'RFK Jr. says he’s not anti-vaccine. His record shows the opposite. It’s one of many inconsistencies' by NPR and 'RFK Jr: How anti-vaccine misinformation has shaped his 'truth-teller' candidacy' by BBC. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)"? Taram (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Look up RFK JR and Bill Maher debate vaccines on YouTube. He spells it out.
He is not an anti-vax conspiracy theorist, he is skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry. 216.237.237.209 (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Read the FAQ. Check the archives how many times this has been discussed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Those "reliable sources" are biased news networks. Shameful by Wikipedia to be so blatantly paid off. Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump's pages are written without these loaded and biased labels. 173.47.198.221 (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
If Biden or Trump were anti-vaxxers, their pages would say so. Blaming the reliable sources is not going to get you anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Kennedy has said himself that he is _not_ anti-vaccine. He and his children are vaccinated, in fact. He clarifies that he is for increases in vaccine safety. The "anti-vax" characterization is incorrect or at least not current. JoshMcCullough (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Read the FAQ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
The FAQ is useless if you all still will not get the simple point that "anti-vaccine activist" and "conspiracy theorist" have negative connotations and should not be used in what is supposed to be a neutral source of information. JoshMcCullough (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
"He would say that, wouldn't he?" – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Translation: "Fuck rules, fuck reliable sources, fuck consensus, I will do the edits I want based on my own misunderstanding of what neutrality is, and I will not listen to reasoning." You will probably not have a future here with that attitude. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
In his own words he is not anti vaccine, but anti government mandate. To arbitrarily assign worth to a source while discounting the man’s own platform is incredibly disingenuous 2600:1700:71E0:2BE0:34D3:A29C:1D21:9F55 (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
No, it's not. He has no clue and is not a reliable source on how to categorize himself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Again, this is a lack of understanding of NPOV. NPOV does not mean that our articles have to come across is neutral. NPOV means that our articles have to reflect reliable sources. All suggestions you propose are not neutral as they cast doubt on vaccines and misportray his antivaccine activism in contradiction to RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
It is wise for Wikipedia to refrain from making declarative statements that could be perceived as taking sides prematurely. When it comes to the origins and response of COVID-19, while some have labeled certain perspectives as "fringe" or based on misinformation, the truth is that a complete understanding is still evolving. Credible sources have presented differing viewpoints that were initially dismissed by others.
Maintaining a neutral point of view entails presenting a range of prominent perspectives on such unresolved issues without prejudging their validity. Labelling positions as "fringe science" or "conspiracy theories" may amount to editorializing if it conflicts with how reputable sources are characterizing those views. Perceived "consensus" perspectives have been overturned by new evidence and analysis in the past.
In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, it is advisable to use precise, unbiased language directly from reliable sources when discussing the various claims and allegations surrounding COVID-19. This approach avoids assuming which perspectives will ultimately be proven right or wrong in the future. Striving for neutrality means refraining from definitively dismissing views that, while currently contentious, are supported by credible sourcing. The objective is to inform, rather than advocate for a particular narrative.
Does this revised explanation encapsulate the essence of representing contentious, unsettled topics like COVID-19 from a neutral standpoint that seeks impartiality? I have tried to emphasize the importance of achieving balance and exercising caution when addressing divisive issues where the full picture is still emerging. Mfrittman (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
You are emphasizing WP:FALSEBALANCE. RFK Jr's views on vaccines are widely discredited. We reflect what reliable sources say, period. If reliable sources change what they say, then we change what we say. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the majority of these reliable sources reflect a specific political perspective. Should sources from other political viewpoints be deemed unreliable solely because they differ? Wikipedia’s role is not to take sides but to present balanced, verifiable information from a wide array of perspectives.
In the US, much of the mainstream media is controlled by a handful of corporations, each with its own interests. Some lean Democratic, others Republican, and both sides influence the content they produce. As a result, it's essential to consider the broader context and potential biases in the information we cite. Independent scholarly works and smaller news agencies might offer less biased reporting, which is crucial for maintaining Wikipedia's neutrality.
RFK Jr. is an environmental lawyer who has often challenged powerful corporations on pollution issues. It's worth noting that these corporations have significant resources to influence public opinion and expert commentary. While many criticisms of him are likely valid, we must be cautious of potential political agendas behind these critiques. RFK Jr.'s stances may conflict with the interests of established organizations, and this conflict could shape the portrayal of his views.
Some of his claims might be discredited, while others might not be, and it’s essential to acknowledge this uncertainty. Wikipedia should not become a platform for perpetuating any particular viewpoint, especially during an election cycle when political motivations are heightened. We should focus on presenting information in a balanced manner, reflecting a wide range of reliable sources without leaning into the language that could be perceived as biased.
I understand that many trust the mainstream media's perspective, but there's a slight possibility that Wikipedia could unintentionally mirror any biases present. It would be more appropriate to use neutral language and present all sides fairly. Just because multiple sources describe someone in a certain way doesn't mean Wikipedia should adopt that language.
By ensuring our content is presented without bias, we uphold Wikipedia’s standards and provide a resource that everyone can trust, regardless of their political views. Mfrittman (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
We've gone over these same exact arguments over and over again on this talk page. I'm not rehashing it anymore here with you. You can read above on this talk page and in the talk page archives to get caught up. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I understand that these arguments have been discussed extensively. However, the repeated nature of these comments suggests there might be ongoing concerns about the article's neutrality. My goal is not to debate political beliefs but to ensure that we uphold Wikipedia's standards for balanced and unbiased content. Let's make sure we are reflecting a wide range of reliable sources fairly. Mfrittman (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
the repeated nature of these comments suggests there might be ongoing concerns about the article's neutrality ... No. What it suggests a handful of single-purpose accounts, one-and-done IP editors, or those generally unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy trying to make an article reflect their own biases. Zaathras (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
↑ Exactly this. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Bingo ! Moxy🍁 01:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your input. I recognize the value of upholding Wikipedia's principles and remaining impartial. To be clear, I am contributing to this talk page because I genuinely want to make sure that the article satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for impartial and balanced material.
I welcome you to examine my editing history, which is accessible to the public, in response to the assertion that these comments are solely coming from accounts with a specific aim or from people who are not familiar with Wikipedia policies. My past demonstrates my contributions to a wide range of subjects, with a primary emphasis on science and color theory. This proves that my account isn't exclusively focused on pursuing any certain goal.
By ensuring that the article gives a well-rounded and impartial view, especially in light of the various opinions on the topic, my goal here is not to represent personal biases. I think it's critical that we take the criticism seriously and try to improve the article's objectivity so that it complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. Mfrittman (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I am an uninvolved administrator. It is time to make an actionable proposal to improve the article or move on. What text should be added or removed? What source would support the change? Why should it be made? This is not a forum where thoughts about biases or anything else are exchanged. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
It isn't easy to present an objective piece about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. because of his broad condemnation in the mainstream media. This critique needs to be acknowledged, but it's also important to recognize the existence of biases and work toward a more balanced and impartial analysis. Following Wikipedia's guidelines, my goal is that the article be considered fair by people representing different views. I will present a proposal with suggestions in the coming days. Mfrittman (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
my goal is that the article be considered fair by people representing different views This is impossible. Wikipedia guidelines demand that fringe ideas be put into a mainstream context without any false balance. Kennedy fanbois will never consider anything like that fair. It's their problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Using the word "fanbois" shows your bias. Can we get some non-baised editors on here? JoshMcCullough (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Total newb chiming in here -- using loaded terms like "anti-vaccine" is definitely seen as being biased, particularly when the man himself has explained his position on vaccines repeatedly and is, in fact, not "anti-vaccine". That this giant topic/thread exists, and the term still won't be updated is borderline election interference. JoshMcCullough (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
A simple Google search of "RFK anti-vaccine" will provide lots of hits to WP:RS, enough to show that this term is valid in spite of RFK's weak denials. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
It is not "valid". Those sources use the term "anti-vaccine" to paint his points of view in a negative light. But he could very well be correct, but just not fit the official messaging. I know you understand this, so why not just fix the language used here? JoshMcCullough (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
he could very well be correct Given your knowledge. But Wikipedia is not based on your knowledge, it is based on the knowledge of humanity. Which includes a real lot of people who know far more than you do. Read WP:FALSEBALANCE, and be more modest. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Mffrittman - I agree wholeheartedly. There is a clear bias happening here. Otherwise they wouldn't start off his CAREER section with the headline "Conviction for heroin possession". I never knew that 'addiction, conviction, and heroin possession' was a CAREER choice. I don't have a problem with the mentioning his heroin addiction at all, he talks openly of his past that occurred 40 years ago. But perhaps putting it in his 'personal' section is where it should be noted. Allowing it in the 'headline' like this is an intentional 'HIT JOB' with the sole purpose of damaging his reputation. Pantress (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I suppose there will be a level of bias in everything and that is why there is bias here. The bias originates with the references that are considered trustworthy sources. Almost every source will be inherently biased so we can only use the sources and do our best based off of them. But what we can do here is prevent Wikipedia-born bias. I would consider putting the addictions in his career section as such. Therefore I agree with this idea to move them for the purpose of both neutral point of view and biography of living persons. Logawinner (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
While Kennedy does not deny being an anti-vaxxer, we can see that he is anti-government, and in that way, he mentions that he does NOT want to eliminate or restrict vaccines, but he however is only against the current vaccines produced by the current government and previous administrations.
If elected, he intends to study and reform them if the so-called "conspiracies" are true.
I propose that we preserve the term “propaganda” in the anti-vaccine hysteria part of this section
personally, i believe that it is unbiased. however, it is pretty biased in a way it is pretty over-exaggerated. 52Timer (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Kennedy does not deny Yes he does. As do pretty much all anti-vaxxers.
he intends to study and reform them if the so-called "conspiracies" are true He is already convinced that they are true, and he has no clue how to "study" vaccines or how to pick people who have a clue about it. He rejects real scientists and believes quacks, frauds and grifters like Andrew Wakefield, who has a patent on something he calls a "measles vaccine" and will earn a lot of money with that if Kennedy has a say about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
“Kennedy does not deny Yes he does. As do pretty much all anti-vaxxers.”
Cool the Fault Generalization! 52Timer (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this Wikipedia should be fired. Inaccurate sources. 2600:6C40:7D00:670A:FC75:6626:886F:84ED (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
"Fired"? 😂 But whatever will we all do without the $0.00/month income? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Man i love me some 0.00 bucks a year income! 52Timer (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The current description uses the term "conspiracy theorist," which carries a significant negative connotation and can be seen as biased. Wikipedia aims for neutrality and objectivity. By attributing the description to public health experts and media outlets, we provide context and avoid demonizing language. This revision ensures the information is presented fairly and allows readers to form their own opinions based on verifiable facts. Accurate and balanced reporting is essential to maintaining Wikipedia's credibility. 2600:100F:B12E:2023:D115:543F:BD2:8417 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Read the FAQ on this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Neutral tone does not mean that the subject is presented in a positive light, but that the writing does not use value-laden language. There are many articles about criminals and truly evil politicians, such as dictators, that are written dispassionately without emotive language. Hitler for example was a mass murderer, racist, conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer who believed in quack medicine, yet his article uses none of these terms.

Opponents of RFK Jr. editing this article should consider that displaying a biased tone in writing about him makes readers question the reliability of the article. It's like listening to a Fox News Channel talk show host. If you agree with him or her, you like the tone because it authenticates what you already believe. But if you don't, then it turns you off. Ironically, by coming on too strong, the article actually helps RFK Jr.'s campaign. TFD (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  • However, the problem that many visitors to this page seem to have is that Kennedy is described as an "anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist", they believe these descriptors aren't "fair" (or even that they're false, which is not true). Saying these things is not "value-laden" - being "value-laden" would be using descriptors that can be disputed. But these things are simply facts. This isn't an edge case - Kennedy and his organisations deliberately spread disinformation, as well as misinformation - they know these things are false. Incidentally, this is coming from someone who isn't even American and therefore couldn't care less how Kennedy does in the election. There may be "opponents" editing, but I would like to see evidence of that. Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    It's fair and accurate to describe Osama bin Laden as a terrorist, but per Wikipedia policy of neutral tone he is not described that way because it is a value laden term. That doesn't mean the article condones his actions or that readers will be any less informed.
    Incidentally, would you or other editors vote for a "anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist?" Or do you think it would be a good thing or at least not a bad thing for someone like that to control the world's most powerful army and economy? TFD (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
    What sort of reasoning is that? We cannot follow what the reliable sources say about Kennedy because of Osama and Hitler and... because if people do not know he is an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist if the Wikipedia article does not tell them that, they may vote for him? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • That's ... slightly bizarre reasoning. I think you need to realise that some US voters would vote for Kennedy because he pushes views that they agree with. It is not the job of Wikipedia to suggest that, merely to point out whether (per reliable sources) those views are based in reality or not. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I did not say, "We cannot follow what the reliable sources say about Kennedy because of Osama and Hitler," I said that we do not violate neutral tone for people worse than Kennedy. I would be appreciative if you would not interject misleading ripostes that do nothing to further the conversation.
As you are aware, the vast majority of reliable sources do not label RFK Jr., they merely describe his statements and positions. That's because mainstream media, unless they have a stated editorial bias, try to avoid the appearance of bias. The same btw is also true of reputable encyclopedias and university textbooks.
I agree that the article should point out RFK Jr.'s views. But you can do that without using judgmental labels for the subject of the article. BTW not everyone who supports RFK Jr. support him because of his views, some see him as the lesser of three evils. If they come across an article written in an obviously biased tone, they may discount what it says. I feel the same way when I come across any polemical writing, unless I share the same beliefs as the writer. How likely are you to be persuaded by an article in the National Review for example? TFD (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
TFD, you're absolutely correct and have clearly articulated yourself and the issues with the article in its current form. It does not reflect the truth with the language used. 49.179.57.60 (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
"Kennedy and his organisations deliberately spread disinformation, as well as misinformation - they know these things are false."
Who's to say if the information is mis/dis information? It depends on the source. And sources are quick to write things off as mid/dis information. Can someone just write this article in a neutral tone? Why is that such a hard thing to accomplish? JoshMcCullough (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17 May 2024. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing disputed views without taking sides in proportion to their representation among experts on the topic.
You keep going on those weird tangents. As if it were our goal to influence the votes of readers and we need to fantasize about how readers will react to what we write. It is our goal to follow what reliable sources say, regardless of whether readers like it or whether it makes them vote for whoever.
And neither the Wikipedia article about Hitler nor the one about anyone else is a reliable source or a good model for this one. Unlike AH and ObL, Kennedy has not started a war or had anyone killed (unless you count those who died of measles because their parents did not vaccinate them after they listened to him), so, unlike AH and ObL, the untruths he spreads are his most relevant aspect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Obviously I have not clearly explained myself because that is an inaccurate summary of my position.
This article, like all articles should present all the facts about the subject in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources and all the opinions published in reliable sources according to their prominence. At the same time the article should use the language typically used in reliable sources which avoid value laden classifications of people.
I chose the examples of other biographies to show that we can write about people worse than RFK Jr. without emotive and value-laden language.I don't understand how you draw the opposite conclusion, that neutral tone applies to murderers but not to people who have not directly killed anyone. Surely if we chose judgmental language, it would be for the worst people. TFD (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not saying that neutral tone applies to murderers but not to people who have not directly killed anyone. I am saying that both RFKJ as AH spread conspiracy theories but for AH, his murderous activities are more important, moving his conspiracy theories into the background and making his article a bad role model regarding that aspect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
But AH isn't referred to as a murderer either, nor is OBL. TFD (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Probably because reliable sources do not call them that. Still a weird tangent. We follow what the reliable sources say, and it is not our fault when they talk about RFKJ that way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion of RFK Jr. and Political Affiliations
People's political views influence how they discuss RFK Jr. When someone refers to him as a "anti-vaxxer" and a "conspiracy theorist," it usually indicates that they have Democratic party influence. He may be viewed differently by Republicans, Libertarians, and certain independent left-wing sources.
Association with the Great Barrington Declaration
RFK Jr. is associated with a group of scientists and their allies who endorse the "Great Barrington Declaration" which advocated for an alternative response to the COVID epidemic. Members of this "Great Barrington" group contend that their voices have been silenced by deleted or shadow banned posts and accounts, while their detractors paint them as spreading misinformation on COVID-19 without participating in rational scientific discussion. This perspective is somewhat corroborated by primary documents from the Murthy vs. Missouri court case.
The scientists, who have been accused by Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Democratic administration, appear to have impressive credentials, including Ph.D. epidemiologists and policy experts who teach at prestigious universities. There is even a Nobel laureate among their supporters.
Multiple Perspectives on Scientific Discourse
We are not discussing climate science in this context. It hasn't been decades that pandemic response policy has been peer reviewed like climate science. Despite being embraced by people who disagree with the Biden administration, I don't see any evidence that this alternative viewpoint started as a position to create chaos for the administration at the time. Its scientific merits must be judged rather than its political merits.
I maintain neutrality on the disagreement. The debate on scientific viewpoints during COVID has been divisive. It is helpful to understand the context of RFK Jr.'s labeling and consider multiple perspectives. For example, the terms "spreader of COVID misinformation" that were used to characterize RFK Jr. are also used to characterize Dr. Jay Bhattachara of Stanford. Modern technology can produce a false consensus if opposing viewpoints are suppressed, erased, or ranked lower in search results.
RFK Jr.’s Beliefs and Public Perception
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is well-known for his beliefs in conspiracy theories, including the belief that the CIA was involved in his uncle's assassination. This belief is widely shared by a majority of Americans, including Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. He also believes that there is a revolving door between politics and lucrative corporate jobs that corrupts the system. Also, he claims that gain-of-function research was conducted on the COVID virus and that it escaped from the Wuhan Lab. These theories, while labeled as conspiracy theories, are discussed in various media outlets and may not be as fringe as is often implied.
Controversial Views on Vaccines
He has discussed a previous client who alleged that her son developed autism after receiving vaccinations. He has put forward the theory that vaccines could potentially be a factor in causing autism and should undergo further testing. As a result, some individuals have accused RFK Jr. of stating that "vaccines cause autism." It is possible that media outlets with a Democratic bias may potentially alter his statements to appear more extreme than intended.
Critique of Media Portrayal
In my opinion, RFK Jr. is incorrect about many things. However, the article heavily relies on Democratic party clichés and fails to address his actual inaccuracies. For example, his claim that the IDF has a one-to-one ratio of combatant to civilian casualties in Gaza contrasts with other sources reporting a 3 to 1 ratio. Democrats displeased with President Biden’s stance on Gaza will not find a more favorable option in Kennedy.
Concluding Thoughts
When discussing sensitive topics such as RFK Jr. and potential biases in algorithms that may align with mainstream Democratic viewpoints, it is important to conduct thorough research and avoid falling into common stereotypes. These algorithms have the ability to shape public opinion in a way that may not fully capture the diversity of perspectives. Therefore, it is crucial to approach these discussions with a critical mindset, seeking information from a variety of reputable sources to develop a well-informed understanding.
Wikipedia's guidelines emphasize the use of secondary reliable sources. However, it is vital to verify the accuracy and reliability of the information presented to ensure professional and ethical communication.
I have found more balanced discussions on these topics from reputable sources such as News Nation, The Hill Newspaper, Reason Magazine, and the BBC. Even certain CNN articles demonstrate a more neutral tone without the use of loaded terms. Mfrittman (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
You spent a lot of words to (again) yell "It's biased!" Zaathras (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any point in discussing all the same useless "It's biaaaaased" BS again and again.
We should close that and wait for the next "awaken" user to point out that it is biaaased. vote for close.--Julius Senegal (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I vote for it to remain open. Mfrittman makes points that I fully agree with. There is a bias happening here and it needs to be resolved. Pantress (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
It's quite clearly biased. Let's do something about it instead of arguing. JoshMcCullough (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Well you’re completely missing the point: we should stop arguing and actually focus on the problem here instead of just babbling on about what is bias or not: it’s quite clearly bias and we should do something about it Stonymusk (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
There is no problem. Wikipedia articles are supposed to follow the reliable sources, and this one does. It would be biased if some editor replaced the position of reliable sources ("RFKJ is anti-vax and spreads misinformation") by their own position ("RFKJ is not anti-vax and does not spread misinformation" or whatever). --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
They didn't. AI did. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Hob Gadling, you said that reliable sources don't refer to AH and OBL as murderers, while they refer to RFK Jr. as a conspiracy theorist. In fact, rs do refer to them as murderers but most don't, just a most rs don't refer to RFK Jr. as a conspiracy theorist. It depends on whether or not they are using a neutral tone. If you are trying to persuade people that AH, OBL and RFK Jr. are horrible people, then you use value-laden language. If you are writing an encyclopedic article, you don't. TFD (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not interested in your literary comparison attempts. Articles are different when their subjects are different, that's enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Hob Gadling: "I'm not interested" and "that's enough" are hardly serious responses to the policy concerns raised by @TFD - you might as well just say "I just don't like it." An article does not need to constantly use value-laden language to plainly express facts about Kennedy's positions on vaccines, etc. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I do not need pings, I have a watchlist. And "the article X handles a different thing differently from how this article handles this thing" is not a "policy concern". --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:NPOV (specifically WP:IMPARTIAL) and WP:BLP (specifically WP:BLPSTYLE) are relevant policies here. See also WP:MOS (especially MOS:LABEL). This sounds like the crux of what TFD is referring to: "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
And before you say that the label is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject," I will quote what TFD said above in references to referring to Hitler, bin Laden, etc. as "murderers" and ask you to respond: "In fact, rs do refer to them as murderers but most don't, just a most rs don't refer to RFK Jr. as a conspiracy theorist." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
It is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Zaathras (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Comparisons to other articles are still not a policy concern. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I was listening to the "On Point" show on NPR in my car this morning, where they were discussing the legacy of censorship during the COVID pandemic. The show featured an interview with a scientist who had faced censorship and was accused of spreading misinformation because the results of her research did not align with the official narrative. They also revisited the "Great Barrington Declaration" in light of the negative impact of isolation on children during COVID. The theory of a Wuhan lab leak is no longer considered fringe.
Robert Kennedy Jr. has been labeled as a spreader of COVID misinformation and anti-vaxxer because of his support for the Great Barrington Declaration and his belief in the Wuhan lab leak theory. He has also been called a conspiracy theorist due to these beliefs. However, attitudes are now shifting towards a reevaluation of how individuals were treated during the pandemic. The criticism of Robert Kennedy Jr. stems mainly from his status as a COVID dissident. These viewpoints are currently being reassessed, even by mainstream media outlets. With changing attitudes, many are starting to see Robert Kennedy Jr. in a different light. To reflect the change in attitudes, this article should be updated. Mfrittman (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The article describes Kennedy's spread of COVID misinformation and his anti-vaccine views, but those have nothing to do with either the GBD or the lab leak theory. Speaking more generally, we should update the article based on new reliable sources, not on assertions of "changing attitudes". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Like other GBD dissidents, Kennedy is also involved in the Murthy vs. Missouri case with them. The labels of anti-vaxxers and spreaders of COVID misinformation are applied to Kennedy, Bhattacharya, Levitt, and all other GBD supporters. Mfrittman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Just stop using value-laden terms, while highlighting RFK Jr.'s points of view, it's straightforward to do so. JoshMcCullough (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
It is closely related to Kennedy's support for the Great Barrington Declaration. Both Kennedy and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya have spoken about their association and agreement regarding COVID policies. The same labels were applied to anyone who supported the GBD. I have even read articles attempting to dismiss Nobel Prize winner Mike Levitt as a nut because he supported the GBD. "He’s a Stanford professor and a Nobel laureate. Critics say he was dangerously misleading on Covid." These articles are all the same and have the same critisms of anyone who supported the GBD.
https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/24/stanford-professor-and-nobel-laureate-critics-say-he-was-dangerously-misleading-on-covid/ Mfrittman (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we share enough common understanding of reality for further dialogue to be productive. Best of luck. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I may be mistaken in my belief that the name-calling directed towards Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is anti-GBD propaganda. It would be simple to prove me wrong. The Great Barrington Declaration was signed in October 2020, so if any of the name-calling towards Robert Kennedy Jr., such as "anti-vaxxer," "conspiracy theorist," or "spreader of dangerous COVID misinformation," occurred before the signing, I would be happy to admit my error. Mfrittman (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Reference #8 at the moment: Mnookin, Seth (January 11, 2017). "How Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Distorted Vaccine Science". Scientific American. Archived from the original on January 12, 2017. "For more than a decade, Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda completely unconnected to reality."
2017 was before 2020. Why do I have to do this for you? I am pretty sure that finding the reference took me less time than it took you to write the I may be mistaken in my belief contribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I believe you may have misunderstood my point, although I acknowledge that my language may not have been entirely clear. I was not suggesting that RFK Jr. had never faced criticism before the COVID pandemic. He has been involved in multiple legal cases against a variety of industries in the past, resulting in the targeting of individuals who seek to damage his reputation.
My point was that the specific language used to criticize him during the COVID period had changed, and this language is commonly associated with him and his allies who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration. The article you shared contains criticisms, but it does not label him as an "anti-vaxxer," for instance. Still, it was an easily misunderstood point, so you have proved that RFK jr. has been criticized for a long time.
I am not a medical expert myself, but I am aware that RFK Jr. has several advisors who specialize in medical issues. For example, when Nicole Shanahan joined his team, he had Dr. Bhattacharya, a medical policy expert from Stanford, brief her on medical policy. Therefore, I am unable to determine who is correct or incorrect when it comes to COVID policy, but it is probable that his viewpoints have some merit. Mfrittman (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
15 posts to this talk page and to this topic since May 17th, and nowhere else. If may be time to accept that your opinion has not swayed anyone, and to move on. Zaathras (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
For more than a decade, Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda completely unconnected to reality and calling him an anti-vaxxer are exactly the same thing. You were not, as you claimed, happy to admit [your] error. Instead, you are using excuses to avoid that.
The article you shared contains criticisms, but it does not label him as an "anti-vaxxer" Kennedy has been an antivaxxer for a long time, and the article has said so for a long time. Another easy thing you could have done yourself: Here is the last version of the article before October 2020. Search it for "vax". There are three sources that call him an antivaxxer in the title. This is the last version of 2019 (so, pre-COVID). It also contains those three sources. It also says he spreads conspiracy theories, and he is in the conspiracy theory category. In the current version, those three sources are still there, and there are about ten more because he has turned the antivaxx up to eleven since then.
It is OK that you do not want to admit your mistake, we are used to that. But can you at least stop misusing this page as a forum by pretending you would admit it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not really relevant if a source calls him an "anti-vaxxer", it is still a "value-laden" term as you all put it. So when you're writing an article for the world's most popular online encyclopedia, shouldn't you avoid using such terms? JoshMcCullough (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
As an observation of this discussion I should point out that this page does not call him an "anti-vaxxer" but an "anti-vaccine activist" which is consistent with sources that cover his career long before he became a political candidate. whether being "anti-vax" is a term of disparagement is beside the real point which is that reliable sources can consistently verify that his stance on vaccines is a significant part of his career and the accurate picture of his biography also comes from the fact that he is also known for his career as an environmental lawyer. The intro is supposed to summarize the contents of the article and both his legal career and anti-vaccine activism are major elements of his biography and notoriety. Jorahm (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want to be more accurate, you could use the term "anti-unsafe-vaccine activist". JoshMcCullough (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
😂 "Unsafe" is completely inaccurate in this context. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
This was written by AI. Was it ChatGPT or a different program? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that you (Gadling) are biased against RFK Jr. You mention the measles thing, but surely it's a bit more complex than you state. JoshMcCullough (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Read WP:FRINGE, WP:YESBIAS, WP:YWAB, WP:LUNATICS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Requesting immediate archiving... – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_7&oldid=1242024499"