Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Opening sentence

I was considering adding this, but decided to come to the talk page to establish consensus on this: would it be a good idea to change the opening sentence from, "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer and writer known for advocating anti-vaccine misinformation and public health-related conspiracy theories," to: "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer, writer, and conspiracy theorist"? I personally think, given that Kennedy's persistent promotion of conspiracy theories has led to him being listed as a conspiracy theorist in the categories he belongs to in the article (as well as being described as a conspiracy theorist by multiple sources that support the "known for advocating anti-vaccine misinformation and public health-related conspiracy theories" section), that it should be this way, though I want to propose this here to see what people think before anything happens to the article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Something needa to be done because the current into paragraph is clearly not written from a neutral point of view. The language used includes negative descriptors such as "promoting anti-vaccine misinformation" and "public health–related conspiracy theories." These statements could be seen as biased since they portray Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. in a negative light. Andelocks (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The article follows reliable sources, which predominantly characterize the subject as a fringe antivaxxer. Zaathras (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I echo your words, @Zaathras: further, I would like to ask since you commented here: do you believe that my proposed sentence change in the original comment works? JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it would still be a clearly biased page as a whole but much less so than “known for advocating anti vaccine misinformation and public health related conspiracy theories”. I don’t think I have ever read a wiki article with such defamatory statements for the first sentences. They are also the first result of a search of “RFK jr” on google. That is undoubtedly intentional and why I would agree with your proposed change given no better options. I think though being born to the kennedy family, graduating Harvard, the founding of Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic and non profit Waterkeeper Alliance, and the respective supervision and presidency of such could be some things written into a new proposed senetence if there is no bias held against him. The sentence up now is unfairly written and shown to anyone on the internet who searches RFK jr with the goals of harming him or his political campaign and it is being allowed to stay up because of opinions and hypocritical beliefs about spreading misinformation. Msnhvd (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff, your wording is fine. As for this other guy... bud, that's too bad. This is what RFK Jr. is now predominantly known for, as supported by sources. If you're mad about him being portrayed that way, perhaps you should be more mad about him being that way. Zaathras (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No, since the intro has changed. --Julius Senegal (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you've seen my previous posts and comments, but to summarize quickly, I don't think the evidence that he's anti-vax or a conspiracy theorist is strong enough. Given that, I still like your suggestion here and wish I had read it before I made my most recent suggestion below because it's pretty similar. I said the following in that discussion, "I was trying to be consistent with how Ron Paul's page, Donald Trump's page, Barack Obama's page, and Joe Biden's page read." The opening is always a few neutral facts and then the rest of the article covers anything controversial, their accomplishments, etc. But for some reason on this RFK Jr article it needs to read differently? I'm not understanding why, and it's not looking like anyone can explain it either :/ Cmsmith93 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely! I came to this page to read about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the first thing I thought was there is a smear campaign against him on Wikipedia. Right from the first sentence, I can tell that the article is biased. The introduction should be short and very general. This man has had an entire life and the page is defining him by views he expressed in only the last few years. It is a travesty. 165.124.121.185 (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I came into the talk section of this article to address this very sentence. It must be conceded that there are people who do not agree with Mr. Kennedy, and have very strong feelings about his ideas and peronsal beliefs. When we say "conspiracy theories" I think it is fair to say that it is inferred from "conspiracy" that there is something false, untrue or fanciful about the ideas that the conspiracy centers around. It is impossible to conclude that Mr. Kennedy believes/thinks/knows that these ideas are false. Additionally, in the current public dialogue the term has a pejorative and negative connation to it - this is true beyond question. It would be the equivalent to opening an article on Barack Obama, George Bush or Donald Trump with the phrase, "{X} is a warlord who has lead the United States in its' subjucation of the middle east" - the phrase to focus on here is, "warlord". That sentence is clearly partisan in nature, and it is designed to effect the thinking of the person reading the article. At wikipedia we have a responsibility to present just truth, factual statements that are the reflection of what has been discovered and has occurred. We must not aim to shape the thinking of the individuals. I second the effort to change this sentence.. it is not objective and against the ideals of Wikipedia. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources tell us that Jr. peddles conspiracy theories. Ergo that's what this article says. Whatever "Mr. Kennedy believes/thinks/knows" is not particularly addressed in this Wikipedia article. He writes whole books full of conspiracy theories, that he promotes conspiracy theories is undeniable and not partisan. If you don't like it, your beef is with Jr. -- M.boli (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

There is clearly a significant group of people in this community who disagree with you. The fact that this is in the talk section is indicative. We must not allow Wikipedia to become a hobby horse for people who don't like someone/something to sharpen their whetstone on. Wikipedia is meant to be objective. It's important that if we're going to start an article with a characterization like this, that we have a clear source that addresses the fact that - for example - "promoted the scientifically proven claim of a causal link between vaccines and autism" - Says who? What source? Where has it been demonstrated as false that there is absolutely no causal link whatsoever between the two?

It cannot be said that such statements like the one just mentioned, and the one mentioned in the headline of this talk discussion, and is believed by many to be a dubious sentence, does not belong in the article. There is a sizable body of evidence that contradicts much of what RFK has backed. We must remove this sentence as it is clearly a partisan sentence designed to shape the thinking of the reader. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No one cares what your personal opinions are about RFK or vaccinations. The article follows the sources, that is the end of the discussion. Zaathras (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

And no one cares about how many Wikipedians disagree with something. See WP:!VOTE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If we want to point out that RFK Jr is a vaccine skeptic, that is fine, perhaps in some lower section that describes the totality of his policy platform. But starting the article this way it is obvious what the author is trying to do in discrediting him based upon pre-determined bias. 69.127.116.72 (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This has been settled by a Request for Comment already - it's available here if you'd like to have a look. Consensus determines this is what he's most notable for. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about a "policy platform". We have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign for that. This article is about the guy himself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's worth mentioning that after the "public health-related conspiracy theories" section of the opening sentence, the first three of the four sources supporting this section (in the fifth citation) call Kennedy a conspiracy theorist. I do believe this is a worthy addition to the opening sentence. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe it is fair to introduce vaccine skepticism in the opening sentence, or even in the first few sentences of the introduction. Doing so appears to further a media effort to develop an image of the man for the reader when they might first be looking into him as a presidential candidate. Some left-leaning programs seem to always bring this up with every mention of his name, and this is received by the public as a push to maintain a narrative, which is unbecoming of open and politically-neutral fact reporting for which Wikipedia is known. 2601:281:8500:51F0:5899:243:B40D:5673 (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

RFK Jr's political raison d'etre is solely to spread his antivaxxer propaganda. We're not going to whitewash an article because of your feelings. We go by facts here. Zaathras (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not his sole reason for running for president. Neither do reliable sources say this is his sole reason. Neither has he. Unless you can present a reliable source saying this his only reason for running, it remains your personal reading of his intentions. JjLi Li (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The lede sentences (the topic of this discussion thread) make no assertions about Jr.'s reasons for running. But reliable sources do say that he is a prominent for promoting anti-vax and conspiracy theories. So that is what this article says. -- M.boli (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair. But it also includes the word "misinformation". This is a reflection of reliable sources but I do wonder as someone new to this, does wikipedia change only once reliable news cites data or can the subject also cite something and it be included? For example, when RFK Jr cites data, is it the editors responsibility to include that data as a new sentence or do we only reflect the perspectives of news organizations on the reliable sources list? Forgive my ignorance but I couldn't find a clear answer on which takes precedence and it seems pertinent to the changes suggested. JjLi Li (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You can suggest a revision of the lede sentences here on the talk page. Editors will engage with it. Otherwise this discussion seems to me like amorphous generalities. M.boli (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Any "data" Kennedy will give is likely to come from the frauds and quacks he naively accepts as authorities, and likely be long-refuted ignorant bullshit. Of course, the average reader will not be able to judge that. WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRINGE apply: we cannot take what he says at face value. It must come from people who know what they are talking about. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The pejorative in the lede sentence of this locked article undermines the claim of neutrality for this platform that many depend on for information free from personal commentary and bias. Sigmundane (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Attempting to whitewash the reality of RFK Jr.'s positions is what would be a neutrality violation, actually. Zaathras (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The term "whitewash" itself conveys that you have a personal and moral belief about the topic (vaccines in this case) and you believe RFK Jr. to be in violation of this and his views in need of "whitewashing". You betray your neutrality with the very language you use. Using the logic you have applied here, I could very well alter the first sentence of nearly every American political figure based on their promotion or opposition to vaccines and gene therapies based on what I believe. For instance, the lede sentence of Donald Trump's article could list him as a promoter of misinformation regarding the effectiveness of experimental, untested mRNA gene therapies for the treatment of Covid 19. I am not here to edit this article, just to read it. And I was embarrassed for the wikipedia community (of which I consider myself a member) when I did. I see no problem with the rest of the article. Sigmundane (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

you have a personal and moral belief Bullshit. According to the best reliable sources, Kennedy is an anti-vax quackery proponent, and that is not the fault of any user here. Zaathras is just following the rules. "Whitewashing" is a perfectly fine word here.

For instance, the lede sentence of Donald Trump's article Possibly. With Trump, there is the problem that if you list all his types of lies in the lede, it will be far too long. But that is not a matter for this Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not here to edit this article, just to read it. Stop wasting our time with your "opinions". --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I hate to add to the sea of talkquotes here but.. experimental, untested mRNA gene therapies for the treatment of Covid 19 - your barefaced POV is showing. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That was the point of my comment. If I were to disingenuously insert a "barefaced POV" into the Donald Trump article's lede sentence, that is how it would read, but that would be inappropriate. So you are proving my point. :) This reminds me of rational conversations I used to try and have with my fundamentalist friends in the 80s and 90s. Makes wikipedia seem like a cult to be honest and I find that sad. But everything can't be perfect I suppose. Sigmundane (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Vaccine misinformation has been the guy's profession for quite a while. RFK Jr. literally is a professional anti-vax activist and misinformer. It is what he is hired to do as chair of CHD. If you don't like it complain to Jr. -- M.boli (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

So you are proving my point. No he does not. This is not how reasoning works.

This reminds me of That is also not how reasoning works. Do you really think that you can convince anybody if you compare them to fundamentalist friends? Please do not answer here. Instead, go away until you have a meaningful, helpful contribution to article improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I stand by my initial statement that "The pejorative in the lede sentence of this locked article undermines the claim of neutrality for this platform that many depend on for information free from personal commentary and bias." I also support @Cmsmith93 suggestion for the opening sentence/paragraph as well as @Zerotone's assertion that "moderation clearly failed" here. Cheers! Sigmundane (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You "stand by" it because you fail to understand that Wikipedia has to follow the reliable sources. We cannot willy-nilly delete the public judgment of the experts because some random people on the internet demand that we have to follow their weird dogma and refuse to say clearly that one side in a conflict has nothing to show and the other side clearly wins. Go read WP:NPOV and try to understand it instead of trying to impose your own rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Siblings' opinion of Kennedy's presidential candidacy.

If the editors here feel it's appropriate to incorporate, this opinion was expressed by Kerry Kennedy and three other siblings, Joseph, Kathleen, and Rory, on the platform formerly known as Twitter. https://twitter.com/kerrykennedyrfk/status/1711419719683559659?s=46&t=xMkwotbTDKIuOJabQITw9Q Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an editor, but I think there should at least be an "Independent Run" section made for all things related to it. The date, perhaps how well/poor he does in the polls, peoples reactions to it, etc. Wikipedia has Twitter marked as "Generally unreliable" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources so the admin's/editors might not be quick to implement this. Cmsmith93 (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I doubt they will mention that it’s only a tiny percentage of his family, who are not standing with him for the election, even though several of his siblings are. You have to understand that, Larry, the founder of Wikipedia admits how it’s been taken over by very bad people, he says. FriendswLarrySanger (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You misspelled "claims", writing "admits" instead. See also Argumentum ad larryem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for the opening sentence/paragraph.

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.

---

So can we still suggest edits for the opening paragraph or does the RfC kind of 'shutdown' that discussion? I did see some folks were still making edits so I think I'm ok? Let me know if I'm doing something naughty. Anyways, I'm struggling a bit to make the paragraph with the citations look right so I'm going to separate them for now and put the main suggestion first without citations, then the why for my suggestion, and then all of the citations I recommend...

Suggestion:

"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known as RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer and writer. He is running for president of the United States in the 2024 presidential election as an independent."

Why do I think this is an improvement?:

There are sections highlighting the anti-vaccine, conspiracy theory, and Children's Health Defense information already in the article. I think my suggestion makes things more neutral and succinct.

Citations/sources:

Kennedy Jr., Robert F. (2018). American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family. Harper. ISBN 978-0060848347.

Kennedy Jr., Robert F. (2021). The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1510766808.

Kennedy Jr., Robert F. (2023). Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak. Children's Health Defense. ISBN 978-1510766969.

Renshaw, Jarrett (October 9, 2023). "RFK Jr. declares independent 2024 presidential run, raises millions more". Reuters. Robert F. Kennedy Jr, an environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist and son of the former senator, announced on Monday in Philadelphia that he is dropping his Democratic Party bid for president and will run as an independent. Cmsmith93 (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you guys think? M.boli Firefangledfeathers Cmsmith93 (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. Definite no from me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Why not? Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is @Cmsmith93's 4th attempt since June to remove from the lede RFK Jr.'s professional occupation promulgating anti-vax misinformation and conspiracy theories. -- M.boli (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

M.boli Do you have evidence that that's his profession? Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

RFK Jr. is chair of Children's Health Defense since 2015. That's his day job, so to speak. He manufactures and spreads vaccine misinformation and health-realated conspiracy theories. He represents the group and their anti-vax views in public. His name is on the CHD law suits and the anti-vax movie and many of their activities. -- M.boli (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You're just regurgitating the first sentence. Do you have links to video or audio of him saying something like, "People shouldn't get vaccinated."? Haha this is what I've been asking for for months... You know this... Cmsmith93 (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That is not how sourcing works in Wikipedia. Please read WP:PRIMARY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You're just regurgitating the first sentence. All those aspects of Kennedy's current career are in these very articles and well-documented. You asked a specific question, I gave a specific answer. But instead of engaging with the material you bleat the same nonsense. You hardly have standing to accuse others of regurgitating. Over and out. -- M.boli (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Smith, any editing suggestion that omits the subject's prominent antivaxx and conspiracy theorizing from the opening is dead on arrival. Stop wasting your time, and ours, please. Zaathras (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going to have one last chat/attempt with M.boli and Firefangledfeathers here. Then I'll move onto the rest of the article. My initial post about it months back highlights how the evidence was too weak so obviously I don't see this -- "subject's prominent antivaxx and conspiracy theorizing". I'm certainly open to better evidence if you guys have any. And obviously stronger evidence should be put in as supporting evidence for those claims. Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The "evidence" is already in the article. Citations. Zaathras (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say there are no sources, or evidence. I said the evidence is weak. Cmsmith93 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to join those in the No corner, simply because I'm not following your logic here. Surely "there are sections in the article highlighting his advocacy for anti-vaccination theories" is more of a reason to include it in the first sentence than it is to exclude? It's received a great deal of coverage (as we can see in the large section within the article) and is a pretty defining characteristic of his, enough so that it merits inclusion this early. I also note your comment about how there should be stronger evidence; how much stronger does this evidence need to be than the approximately 25-30 sources in the section about his anti-vaccination advocacy and conspiracy theories? If your concern is about the four sources in the first sentence, please note that per WP:LEADCITE we only add citations for stuff that's likely to be challenged; there are far more within the article's body itself that can back this up. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"Surely "there are sections in the article highlighting his advocacy for anti-vaccination theories" is more of a reason to include it in the first sentence than it is to exclude?" I was trying to be consistent with how Ron Paul's page, Donald Trump's page, Barack Obama's page, and Joe Biden's page read. So no, since those other pages don't pick a random piece of information covered somewhere in the article and mention it in the opening sentence or two. They just say the quickest most relevant thing about them, their name, and birthday. So my suggestion here would fall in line with those pages I figure would be similar. Cmsmith93 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no rule that demands that every article needs to follow the same template, and there is no rule that says that article structure needs to be consistent. We follow the existing rules, not the nonexisting ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources: Kennedy himself. Lol. No, and now WP:STICK, this is boring. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2023 (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.

What are the sources for the term "disproven"?

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.

---

This term seems to have appeared only once in the entire article, and curiously, it is in the lead. As per my previous reasoning, in statistical inference and scientific research more broadly, there is a typical setup where a "causal link" may be plausible based on the rejection of a test, but not "disproven" based on the non-rejection of the same test. Those who repeatedly reverted my edit should list any WP:RSes that specifically says "disproven". Remember, this is WP:BLP. Normchou ^💬 01:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:MEDRS/FAQ and WP:FRINGE We follow the consensus of relevant experts, yes even in WP:BLP.DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

So maybe Seth Mnookin is an expert on the relationship between vaccines and autism (??), but why didn't he mention the research in the article? I see broken links to CDC data on whooping cough, but I don't see any research on autism cited. Cmsmith93 (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I gave you five citations. Are you referring to those? Don't "Just Asking Questions" please make statements. Ideally those statements will be about the topic of this thread. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Although according to epistemology, synthetic a posteriori statements cannot be proved, we assume they can. Otherwise, we would have to qualify every article, for example by saying that it has not been disproved that the earth is flat. TFD (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The point on epistemology and the "flat earth" analogy are tangential. While there is overwhelming evidence supporting certain scientific assertions, effectively rendering them pragmatically "proven", a lack of evidence does not equate to "disproven." Instead, it underscores the need for further investigation rather than a confirmation of the opposite. This aligns with basic scientific methodology and decision-making under uncertainty. Normchou ^💬 07:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In other words, it's important to distinguish between the absence of evidence and evidence of absence. I had assumed that Wikipedians were well-versed in this methodology and discourse. Normchou ^💬 07:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

a lack of evidence does not equate This is not about a fucking "lack of evidence", and it never was. Stop misrepresenting. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Technically, it is not possible to prove a negative (in this case, that means that any measurement of the hypothetical effect the MMR vaccine has on autism will never get any closer to being zero than "zero plus/minus epsilon" for mathematical reasons). But given that the only evidence for it that has ever existed was a tiny study with 12 data points, all of which were cherry-picked and most of which were additionally faked, by a guy who had three different undisclosed conflicts of interest, and based on a combination of two implausible hypotheses both coming from thin air, while the evidence against it is an overwhelming number of studies with huge numbers of participants and no known weaknesses, it seems churlish to try to nitpick away the "disproven". Wakefield's claims can hardly get more disproven than that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed that this thread is about replacing "disproven" by "unproven". That is totally unacceptable. "Unproven" would be the correct word only if there were a plausible mechanism but no evidence yet either way. In this case, neither of those preconditions is true. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Typical attempt of white-washing, implying that "unproven" solely means that in the future it will be definetly proven.

No, various results say "no", and the philosophical (epistemological) terminus does not apply here. --Julius Senegal (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Your understanding of the issue is wrong, and this (Typical attempt of white-washing) borders on casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I made no claim that "unproven hypotheses will definitely be proven in the future." Instead, I am merely saying that there's a distinction between "we haven't found evidence for this yet" and "we have evidence that this is not true.", and the term "disproven" is unsuitable in the first scenario. Normchou ^💬 07:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose we could use "false" or "fraudulent" instead of "disproven". But we are certainly not using "unproven", with its insinuation that there is possibly a link there, just one that hasn't been discovered yet. On that basis we could use the word to cover any postulated cause for autism, however fantastical or ridiculous. I also have to say that I am quite tempted to block you from editing the article because of this ridiculous edit. You need consensus for controversial edits - there is clearly none, and neither will there be. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We can end that, as per Black Kite. Too many Kennedy fans out there. --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It is absolutely fine to be a Kennedy supporter and edit the article, as long as you are editing it dispassionately. This is a separate issue, however, which involves core issues of reliable sourcing and fringe science. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

According to logic, a self contradiction implies infinite conclusions. "All dogs are not dogs therefore RFKJR is made of cheese" is a logically valid argument. LOL. Thank god we don't use a priori reasoning in determining content. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I did find it rather odd that the research that did the disproving was not cited. We have the scientific american article where the author mentions autism, but, hell I could've missed it, I don't see the relevant research quoted or cited or mentioned at all. Cmsmith93 (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The research does not mention Kennedy, so we cannot cite it here. That would be WP:SYNTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I find it rather odd, that even a whole article is not enough for you. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it's irrelevant to Kennedy, save for the fact that he chooses to believe a fraud that got a British medical doctor struck off as a physician. Many other people did (and still do) believe it, but there is still a requirement when discussing it to point out the facts about it, otherwise Wikipedia runs the risk of suggesting that it may be valid. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, this nonsense has taken up far too many bytes now, and should be closed. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

AP Article on his antivaxx harm

This Associated Press article is a good collection of examples where his antivaxx influence caused harm to those who believed him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Eh, it's a pretty weak article actually. "RFK Jr. spent years stoking fear and mistrust of vaccines." evidence? "These people were hurt by his work" hardly. RFK Jr wrote the forward to a book titled Cause Unknown, which highlights recent sudden deaths in young people. "that falsely argues COVID-19 vaccines caused a spike of sudden deaths among healthy young people." evidence? "His death in August 2022 was due to a malformed blood vessel in his brain." evidence? "When the Faheys and residents of their town in California tried to contact the publisher and author to get Braden and his picture taken out of the book, no one responded." evidence? All of that is after reading maybe 20% of the article. Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The Associated Press is a reliable source and they are not obligated to meet your personal standard of evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Cmsmith93 should first become familiar with Wikipedia rules and standards, then jump into the honeypot, not the other way around. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Generally yeah they're pretty good. I didn't say they were...? My personal standard goes beyond just having a citation. Asking for evidence to support a claim is the lowest bar you can set, otherwise all claims are true. Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"RFK Jr. spent years stoking fear and mistrust of vaccines" evidence? Excuse me? He's been stoking fear in vaccines since 2005. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Cmsmith93 should first get good information about Kennedy, then jump into the honeypot, not the other way around. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it could be true. I just haven't seen strong enough evidence of that (yet?). Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Associated Press is ok. I concur with the others here (except ofc with Cmsmith93). --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cmsmith93: As you search for "evidence" you might want to consider maybe Bill Gates-owned 5G cell phone towers have penetrated your blood-brain barrier and altered your DNA. You don't need to take my word for it, RFK Jr. says that. So it must be true. -- M.boli (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It might also have given them autism! Brat Forelli (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link to him saying that?

How did you go from what I said, "this AP article lacks evidence all over" to "everything RFK Jr says is true"? Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The Associated Press has a verified track record for accuracy and fact-checking. You do not. That is why we accept the AP as a source, rather than your analysis and opinions of their evidence. Zaathras (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to move wording into another part of the lead

This isn't a big deal either way. But it seems a bit awkward from a grammatical and stylistic point of view to list Kennedy's pseudoscientific anti-vaccine beliefs in the first sentence of the article. Even among individuals particularly known for a hideous or crazed belief surrounding a singular topic — e.g. George Wallace (Note: I'm not comparing the two. This is just an example.) — it is almost never mentioned in the first sentence of a person's page.

Does anyone object to moving the Children Defense Fund + other stuff to the third paragraph? Presently, the third paragraph is artificially separated into different parts of the article. I don't think the RFC intended this. (The original dispute seems to be predominately based upon the wording being in the lead, which I agree with, rather than position.) KlayCax (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Cannolis:. For example. We don't say: George Wallace is an American politician best known for his support of Jim Crow laws and segregation in the 1960s. It comes across as remarkably awkward sounding. KlayCax (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The second sentence of Wallace's lede says that instead. It only doesn't in the first sentence because he has another larger claim to notability, the terms he served. For now, Kennedy Jr.'s notability still is almost entirely based on his anti-vaccine views. If he wins an election, then that would be a reason to push such views back to the second sentence. Silverseren^C 04:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

RJK Jr.s profession has for along time been promulgating vaccine and health misinformation and conspiracy theories. For going on two decades. Arguably he has had more influence in his life from this part of his career. The lede paragraph would be more accurate if we move the environmental lawyer stuff out of the first sentence. Describing Kennedy first as an environment lawyer is arguably undue emphasis. -- M.boli (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Kennedy has been far more well known over the last decade and a half as an anti vaccine activist, rather than for his work as an environmental lawyer. It's clearly due in the opening part of the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree that it's a bit clunky but keep in mind we are not just mentioning his beliefs, we are summarizing years of anti-vaccine and health conspiracy activity. Unfortunately I can't think of a great single word for this(activist seems a bit weak), but per the RFC we cannot pretend it is not a significant portion of his notability. I don't mind moving the CHD stuff out of the first paragraph as I think that is included in "promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories", though I would move it to the 4th paragraph as I see the lead as organized into

1 first sentence

2 family background as a Kennedy

3 environmental activism

4 medical/healthcare misinformation

and feel that the CHD stuff belongs there with the other health misinformation. Not sure what you mean by the 3rd paragraph being artificially separated. Cannolis (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Something like:

Kennedy is an American lawyer, writer, and conspiracy theorist best known for his opposition to the scientific consensus on vaccination. He is an independent candidate in the 2024 presidential election. Kennedy's public health positions are rejected by medical organizations, doctors, and other medical practitioners, who have widely described his pseudoscientific claims as being harmful to public health.

Would entirely be in line with the RFC's wording. It's also extensively less clunky. Does that work? @Cannolis: @M. boli:. KlayCax (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

By "artificially separated" I meant that his anti-vaccine positions are split between two spots of the lead. (e.g. Children's Defense Fund is in first paragraph; the rest in third.) KlayCax (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't find that proposal to be much less awkward than the existing wording. Also feel that it avoids calling his activities promoting misinformation and conspiracy theories and avoids using wikivoice, both of which are appropriate to use as per the RFC and the vast majority of RS. Cannolis (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose making a change. This lead has been hotly contested and this rewrite doesn't seem very different to me, certainly not worth the edit storm it will incite. The fact that he is known for conspiracy myths and also heads an organization that propagandizes conspiracy myths is not a redundancy in language, it's a redundancy in his life.DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, as per previous discussion we should absolutely not be changing this. RFK isn't a random COVID loon; his anti-vaccine advocacy has been going on for nearly 20 years, and it's what he's best known for - indeed, it's been his profession. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed wording. Agree with above comments. A) We don't want to remove wikivoice. RJK Jr. peddles misinformation is better than peddles stuff which doctors disagree with. B) Chair of CHD is his job, his title. It would be wrong to move it. (I think he is on leave for the campaign, but still we leave it in.) C) Much of this was litigated extensively earlier.
• Oppose the usual WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this any different from the suggestion I made two weeks earlier? It looks the same. Cmsmith93 (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Propose to remove crud from lede

I think some of the clunkiness of the lede can be fixed by eliding some the less-important historical stuff, viz:

Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials as RFK Jr. and the nickname Bobby, is an American environmental lawyer and writer who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories. He is an independent candidate in the 2024 presidential election (before October 9, 2023, he was a Democratic Party candidate). He is chairman of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group.

Kennedy is a son of U.S. attorney general and senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of U.S. president John F. Kennedy and senator Ted Kennedy. After growing up in the Washington, D.C. area and Massachusetts, he graduated from Harvard University and obtained his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Virginia School of Law.

The parts I have struck out above are sludge, for lede purposes. They in the historical parts of the article. -- M.boli (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

New York Times article

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/us/rfk-jr-finances.html How R.F.K. Jr. Has Turned His Public Crusades Into a Private Windfall The causes Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has championed have brought him admiration, criticism — and tens of millions of dollars. By Susanne Craig New York Times Nov. 16, 2023 Nbauman (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)