Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Difference between revisions

Incredibly biased article.

Tendentious section not getting anywhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The left-wing bias in the first paragraph of this page is absolutely ridiculous. Why is this allowed? 2001:56A:6FE9:B6C0:C4F2:258F:8540:2B58 (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Drive-by IP/new users frequently complain that Wikipedia is "biased" when it doesn't fit their personal worldview. The only thing this generates is eyerolls from experienced users, because they never actually address the sourcing regarding the claims in the first place. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC) To speak to this, I would not accuse Wikipedia as biased. But the beginning of this particular article is surprisingly negative and one-sided. Wikipedia is better than this. 136.32.100.222 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Alex Jones is pretty negative too, and I think the negativity is well earned in both cases. Kennedy's anti-vax advocacy has really eclipsed his signficance as an environmental lawyer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC) "eclipsed his signficance as an environmental lawyer" He was not that significant as a lawyer anyway. If he was not famous for his support for pseudoscience, I doubt if he would qualify for a Wikipedia article. Dimadick (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Quite the exaggeration. His work on environmental issues was enough to get him almost named to Obama's cabinet as head of the EPA. The Waterkeeper Alliance is a very notable organization. It's fine not to like his vaccine activism, but it's totally wrong to say he would not otherwise be notable. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC) His work quite arguably wasn't sufficient to warrant cabinet consideration. His name as a Kennedy family scion greatly helped that rumored consideration. Just like Hunter Biden wouldn't have likely been appointed VP of Amtrak if his dad was not a senator. SecretName101 (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Read the published articles he references. Stop getting upset with people’s opinions 67.213.245.74 (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Alex Jones has charges against him for spreading fake news. His is deserved; he broke the law. Buddyfire917 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC) you might assume wikipedia would be better than this, but in doing so, you would unfortunately be about the same level of incorrect as if you were to refer to water as “dry”.. you are better off just not even bothering, because only those with approved opinions are allowed to force them upon others around here. Snarevox (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC) I absolutely agree. It reads like it was written by the DNC as part of their campaign to discredit RFK Jr. This borders on election tampering. Mitchelloverton2020 (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC) "Election tampering"? That's Trump's framing. It is nonsense. We reflect what WP:RS reflect. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with this. Shouldn't there be a "this article may not be neutral" tag added to the top of the article? Opok2021 (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Agree. This article clearly violates NPOV. Instead presenting facts in an unbiased way and letting readers come to their own conclusion, the article heavy handily pushes readers to have a negative view of Mr. Kennedy from the first sentence. It reads like it is a hit piece published by a MSNBC or the Biden campaign. Allowing such bias really hurts the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source. Using negative opinion pieces from biased sources as a way to create a facade of "accurate reporting" is a very Orwellian level of deceit. It's sad that the Admins here seem to prefer biased hit pieces just because they are in writing over a person's actual words. For example, Mr. Kennedy states here (as he has done in dozen of interviews) that he is fully vaccinated and not against vaccines, he just believes in science and vaccine safety (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odOtmYpjnDc). NewEditor101101001 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC) If you read the article Kennedy is literally quoted as saying he's pro vaccine and had his children vaccinated. Cool, that still doesn't negate the fact he has gained notability for promoting unscientific and bullshit conspiracy theories about vaccines causing autism and that he's been named as one of the main players in the anti-vaccination movement. The fact we're not trying to stifle this information and provide some sort of false sense of balance doesn't mean we as editors are "biased" or whatever other labels you may throw about. His conspiracy theorist activities have received way more coverage and far outweigh anything else he has done and there is very little else to add to that sad state of affairs. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Your first sentence admits that RFK Jr. isn't antivaxx, but you're negating the facts based on slanderous opinions since they occur in writing? That's insanity! So what a person actually says and promotes doesn't matter to wikipedia? All that matters is the "popular narrative" even if it is factually incorrect and slanderous? So if NBC, ABC, and the AP all print articles quoting BLM calling Gandhi a racist for not fighting hard enough for black rights in South Africa, you're say that's all that is needed to change the opening line of Gandhi's wikipedia page to "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948) was a racist and convicted criminal"? It's clear that some of you have an irrational dislike for RFK Jr., but you're clearly risking the credibility of wikipedia as a whole by continuing to push political propaganda. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Nah, my first statement says that this article actually includes RFK's denial, but when you constantly go around screaming from the rooftops about how vaccines are bad, you're going to be (rightfully) called an anti-vaccination activist regardless of whether you say "I'm not one of those guys!" If it's your word vs 20 reliable source's words, you're not going to win that battle. There's no "slanderous opinions" or "irrational dislike for RFK Jr." (I'm not even a resident of the U.S. so I have zero skin in the game), just statements backed up by a litany of reliable sources about what he has promoted. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC) So it's RFK Jr.'s fault that people can't listen to what he's actually saying, so the slander is more important than his actual words? He's literally written books about what his goal is (vaccine safety), yet you prefer to rely on unscientific opinion pieces from far left sources? It's sad to see wikipedia drift so far from it's original intent and devolve into a meaningless propaganda tool. I wonder if you guys will wake up one day and realize that you're repeating the same mistake the catholic church made by arresting Galileo for saying the earth revolves around the sun. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) It's RFK Jr's fault that he's gone around spreading anti-vaccine conspiracy theories for the guts of 20 years, and as a result reliable sources have noted that he has done this. As for "unscientific" or "far left" or whatever else, if you're really going to turn around and describe NBC News and AP News (both of which are acknowledged by community consensus as reliable sources), let ALONE Scientific American, and a LITANY of medical journals sourced in the article as "unscientific" and "far left", then I fear this may be a waste of both of our time. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Of the sources used in the article, which ones would you characterize as far left? Squeakachu (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC) @Squeakachu Scientific American has a left bias. (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/scientific-american) NBC News has a left bias. They are also owned by the same parent company that owns MSNBC that is far, far left and often pushes misinformation and DNC propaganda. (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/nbc-news-media-bias) Center for Countering Digital Hate has a leftist bias. (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/center-countering-digital-hate-media-bias) (What is this source???) AP has a leftist bias. (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-bias) Notice a pattern? How are "reliable sources" determined and is it ever updated to take into account changes and new biases? CNN today is very different than CNN 20 years ago. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) The problem in this case is not the sources, it is the editors. Opok2021 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC) (Attack on editors stricken. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)) This is inappropriate and off-topic. Focus on content, not on contributors. This is also not the place to discuss what sources are reliable and which are not. That is covered by WP:RSP. This is completely unproductive. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Worth noting AllSides describes it's Scientific American and Center for Counter Digital Hate ratings as "low or initial confidence." If your source says they have low confidence in their ratings it's not a good sign. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Why isn't a single center or right leaning source allowed to be used? Why are all the sources left to far left? Do you not realize how much you're damaging the credibility of wikipedia by being openly biased? NewEditor101101001 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC) When you say "far-left" are you really suggesting that there are media sources in the United States that are biased towards putting the means of production in the ownership of workers? Communist news outlets? Scientific American and AP seem perhaps centrist. Maybe slightly left of the U.S. spectrum, but "far left" seems like not a credible claim. CT55555(talk) 17:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC) To answer your questions: 1) Sources are discussed by editors at WP:RSN and frequently discussed sources are listed at WP:RSP. There are plenty of "center or right leaning sources" that can be cited in articles and frequently are. 2) Not all the sources are left, Associated Press is a reliable source and hardly a leftist newspaper. It's borderline absurd to object to it as a leftist paper. But if you're convinced it is a leftist paper, then I can only point you to RSP and RSN. 3) Have you stopped and considered that the one with the open bias here is the one calling every source they don't like "left to far left?" TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Your case hinges on Allsides, and per community consensus (WP:ALLSIDES), it is not deemed as a reliable source. To answer your question on how reliable sources are determined: they're reviewed by the community periodically (some every year or more frequently if my memory serves me correctly?) to ensure that they haven't slipped as a reliable source and to take into account changes. For what it's worth, CNN is also deemed as a reliable source by community consensus. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Ad Fonte, Media Bias Fact Check, and other sites have a similar rating for the sources listed above, which are the first 4 sources used in the article. How are the sources "deemed" reliable? The fact that MSNBC and CNN are considered reliable and "Occupy Democrats" is allowed as a source but NY Post and Fox News aren't useable seems to to indicate that the left leaning to far left bias is one of the requirements for being deemed "reliable". How can wikipedia even a remote level of NPOV when only leftist biased sources are allowed?? NewEditor101101001 (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC) We do not deem sources reliable by virtue of offwiki websites deciding on them. "Occupy Democrats" is allowed as a source - this is not correct. Occupy Democrats is listed as a deprecated source and you'll literally get a warning pop up on your screen if you try to add them. As I said earlier, sources are deemed reliable by community requests for comment, as demonstrated at WP:RSP. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC) @Ser!, perhaps your need to read the WP:RSP more closely - "Occupy Democrats: In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source à la the Daily Mail. This does not mean it cannot ever be used on Wikipedia; it means it cannot be used as a reference for facts. It can still be used as a primary source for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like." The far left "MSNBC: There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable." The far left Atlantic (which seems to find a way to call everything from sleep to cleaning racist) "The Atlantic: The Atlantic is considered generally reliable." Meanwhile: "New York Post: There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics." "Washington Examiner: Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source", but the left "Washington Post: Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable" with no mention of it's partisan bias. Scanning the list, @TulsaPoliticsFan, name a few of these "acceptable" right wing sources? This is absurd. The judgement of what's "reliable" seems to be based on political bias rather than an objective standard. Why even have a faux NPOV rule? If there really is no desire to have true neutrality, it seems like it would be better just to own up to the fact that Wikipedia is now a left wing media source. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This is so ridiculous, it's funny: "Encyclopædia Britannica: There is no consensus on the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available." The original inspiration for Wikipedia and the go to encyclopedia for decades isn't considers as reliable as left wing opinion articles. Some of you have to be objective enough to see how ridiculous this is. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Please see WP:NOTFORUM and also WP:BLUDGEON. CT55555(talk) 19:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) The only one of the sources you used as examples that is more than "leans left" is the Center for Countering Digital Hate, and their confidence in that rating is low. AP in particular, the only source with a "high" confidence rating, is only barely outside of the center rating. Squeakachu (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC) I also believe the article is not neutral. I dont think the opinion is limited to drive by IP address editors as one editor alleged above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Opinions are no reason to change an article, no matter how many of them there are. See WP:!VOTE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Per @HappyWanderer15, there was an editor vote "Overall, I counted 17 votes for keeping the status quo and 19 votes advocating some sort of change, ranging from modest to substantial." Clearly a majority of eligible voters realize there's moderate to extreme bias which requires changes. Sorry if you don't like the vote, but that's how democracy works. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Sorry if you don't like the vote, but that's how democracy works. Wikipedia is not a democracy. And this is WP:NOTAVOTE. Sorry if you don't like this, but that's how Wikipedia works. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC) then why did 36 people vote? Snarevox (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC) People opined. They did not "vote". CT55555(talk) 18:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Exactly @Snarevox. Wikipedia isn't a dictatorship of @Ser!. It's supposed a collaboration. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Please try reading the links that Ser! shared with you rather than making a ridiculous insinuation like this. This is not constructive at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC) You're right, @Ser! Wikipedia is not a democracy. We aim for consensus. Clearly we are far from a a consensus as to how to proceed. That probably means it's time for those who are stonewalling to stop insisting on the status quo. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC) I suppose it'll be up to the RfC closer to determine how we progress. As for the stonewalling, as someone who's voted against the status quo in this RfC, I've not seen any stonewalling so to speak, though I'm sure WP:ANI would be happy to deal with it in any case. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC) @HappyWanderer15 is right. Despite a majority indicating the need for change, there seems to be a filibuster going on by people who were able to make biased changes early and then locked down the page in what seems to be a desperate attempt to help Biden. It's appalling and is directly destructive to Wikipedia's medium and long-term relevance. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC) NewEditor101101001, you are the third editor in this thread I'm giving the same warning to: cut out the bad faith assumptions and focus on content, not contributors. Otherwise, we're going to discuss your behavior on the noticeboards. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC) @Muboshgu, the whole issue is the content, specifically the need to change it. However, as @HappyWanderer15 highlighted, there is stonewalling. How do you address that by ignoring stonewalling/stonewallers? NewEditor101101001 (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC) You cannot say that I have not warned you sufficiently. We'll continue this on AN/I. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC) It is interesting that some of the people arguing most adamantly against any change like @Ser!, @Hob Gadling, @M.boli, and @Valjean are the same ones who have been actively editing the article to be more negative over the last 45 days regardless of consensus views. In fact, some of those edits have been as recent as today! NewEditor101101001 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Alright, now you're just flat-out lying. The only changes I've ever made to the article have been minor copyedits. I strongly advise you start heeding what Muboshgu has just told you just above your message. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 23:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC) As long as any bias is from reliable sources, we are on solid ground, and they brand him as an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist. He is not the only one of that ilk who personally is vaccinated yet pushes views that cause his followers to oppose all vaccines. It is only editorial bias that we worry about. If anyone can point to biased wordings that are from editors and not based on RS, then point it out. (Editors are supposed to document the biases in RS, so the content will reflect those biases.) Otherwise, good riddance with misusing the term "bias" around here. Such comments are nearly always unconstructive and will usually be deleted on sight, without comment. We DNFT. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This article is clearly biased to present a negative view of RFK. Although apparently reliable sources have been used, the information should be rewritten to be neutral. I assume if I rewrite the lead section and add a non NPOV tag at the top of the article, it will be reverted. Why? What are the reasons for the article being like this? We cannot be having political bias this bad, especially on an article that has had 2 million views in the past month. Opok2021 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Opok2021, I'm going to give you one chance, and then similar comments by you will be deleted on sight. Read my comment right above yours. We do not censor or whitewash articles or people here. We document what RS say. "Neutral" at Wikipedia does not mean "no point of view". It means remaing neutral to what RS say, and if they say one thing, no matter how biased, we are not supposed to neuter or neutralize what they say. RS universally document that RFK Jr is an anti-vaccinationist and conspiracy theorist, so we write that. We do not interpose our opinions and non-neutral POV on the subject. We faithfully report what RS say. If you can't live by those rules, then leave Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC) I believe there is editor bias. The negative information about RFK, relating to vaccines and conspiracy theories should be in the article, but not in the first part of the lead section. Within the first sentence of this article, the impression a reader gets is overly negative. In other major political articles, including Biden, Trump and Boris Johnson, the reader does not receive this impression. The first bias here is to do with a high concentration of negative information about RFK being in the lead section (and the first sentence). The second bias is the placement of the information being very early on in the article. What are the reasons for this? Opok2021 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Opok2021, the placement is already being discussed in the RfC in the next section. These are the types of things we can work with, and it can be done without attacking other editors or implying bad faith on their part. Such accusations are blockable offenses. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Valjean, no one is being attacked here. However, I cannot assume good faith for some of this article as it is clearly bias as stated above. Accusations of paid and bias editors cannot just be swept under the rug. Opok2021 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Opok2021, if you cannot assume good faith, then you should not be posting here. Unspecified accusations of paid editing are attacks on all editors. This is my final warning for everyone to cut out that nonsense before we go to the drama boards. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Okay. If an article is bias, when/when not is it bad faith? If the bias was deliberate, surely you can assume bad faith? If the bias isn't, you assume good faith. Opok2021 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC) The question of bias is irrelevant unless you can prove an editor biased the content based on their own opinion, not on what the RS say. There are myriad innocent ways that can happen, so accusations are not allowed without clear evidence they did it on purpose. RS provide the bias in this article. Absent evidence that will stand up, beyond the shadow of a doubt, on a drama board (our version of a court of law), you must always AGF and not even allow your mind to go anywhere near assuming bad faith. Such thinking makes it impossible for you to edit and discuss in a collaborative manner. That's a basic requirement here. Your accusations poison the well. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC) I wasn't accusing anyone of anything, just the article for being bias. I cannot confirm or prove there is political bias, but there is definitely a negative view on RFK. The bias here is where the negative information occurs (in the first sentence), and not RS. It's serious as it would affect the presidential campaign. I was asking how AGF worked as I didn't fully understand it. Hopefully this article gets sorted soon as it is taking a long time. Opok2021 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Above, you said The problem in this case is not the sources, it is the editors. Valjean struck your comment, you have not retracted it. You did not accuse an individual editor of anything, you accused all of us. In light of RFK Jrs newly published comments about COVID being "targeted" and designed to not impact Jews and the Chinese, I think it's clear that we're describing RFK Jr accurately and in line with RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC) The placement of the negative comments about RFK make the lead section overly negative to the reader. That's the bias the comment was referring to, as well as the editors who potentially made that bias. I wasn't saying it for certain, and not accusing everyone. It was a mistake, I was basically saying the article is bias and there is a potential political bias in the article. The sources are not the problem, it's the content, and editors add the content. I'm not sure I want to delete the comment I made as it was simply wrongly worded, so my bad. Again, I was not trying to accuse anyone, I was just pointing out editor bias. Opok2021 (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) The question of placement is being discussed in the next section. Your comments belong there and must be sanitized of any allegations of bias. Wikipedia articles document facts and opinions found in RS, and they are often biased. That's okay. We are not supposed to get rid of or neuter that bias. Bias, when accurate, is a good thing. A bias that approves of bad behavior is not a good bias. Those who support Kennedy are trying to get Wikipedia to accept their own bad biases and use them here. We do not do that. We follow the biases found in RS and document them. You need to get that through your head and stop bitching about bias. You're really complaining about facts you don't like, not a bias, and just how much prominence those facts deserve in the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the info. RS are bias, and that's fine. In this case, though, I meant deliberate editor bias (unconfirmed), not RS bias. Opok2021 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC) You are again alleging deliberate editor bias without any evidence thereof. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Yes, you're describing him accurately, but it is too negative. The first sentence especially needs to change. Opok2021 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC) In what way is it too negative? That's how RS describe him. What change would you suggest that does not become censorship or whitewashing? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC) It's too negative as it leaves the reader with a negative impression from the beginning of the article. My solution to this would be delete the part of the first sentence with the vaccines and conspiracy theories, keep it the same, and move it below to another paragraph in the lead section. Opok2021 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC) @Valjean, hiding behind "a biased source is considered a RS, so therefore any extreme bias they push is absolutely okay because I agree with it" is a cowardly cop out. Is Wikipedia supposed to be a unbiased information source or an extension of the DNC? as @Jtbobwaysf and others have said, it's sadly starting to look like the latter. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC) There is indeed increasing editor bias over the last decade or so which seems to increase every year. Many of us long term editors have left or are on the verge of leaving. Wikipedia is starting to be an echo-chamber of a certain type of editors, many of which I think are paid editors (either state operatives or paid through organizations). Even on this article we have a disclosed COI working for the Kennedy campaign, as we can see the importance of these articles to PR. For every one disclosed editor I guess there are ten undisclosed editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Jtbobwaysf, this can be discussed without attacking other editors or implying bad faith on their part. Such accusations are blockable offenses. You know better. Research also shows that Wikipedia's credibility immediately increases when editors like you leave the project, so I'm not too worried. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC) I almost raised this section at BLP/N this morning. Now I think it may need to go to AN/I instead. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Agreed. We don't need the editors who won't AGF and keep on insinuating that editors are biased and or paid. Read that link I just posted. Research shows that a loss of such editors immediately increases Wikipedia's credibility, so the sooner they leave, the better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC) This is no attack on any specific editor in my statement. I am making a generalized statement about the average of editors in general and the way that has changed across all articles over a decade or more. The only specific editor I mentioned has disclosed his/her COI and is listed on this article page above, and that is obviously the correct approach, I laud that editors disclosure of their COI. That specific editor, my comments would actually be laudatory of that editor rather than derogatory. Your suggestion that I cannot make generalized comments about editing in general is curious. Is there a specific policy that you think bans me from making comments about the change in editors in general over ten years? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Jtbobwaysf, yes, the behavioral guideline is WP:AGF. Suggesting there's COI or undisclosed paid editing is assuming bad faith. Like my previous edit, consider this my final warning to cut out this behavior before this discussion is escalated. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Any objections to closing this section? 30 days of yes-it-is, no-it-isn't does not seem to be a productive discussion. Is there anything left to actually discuss here? Zaathras (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC) For the love of all that is holy, this thread needs to be hatted by someone uninvolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) None at all, and an involved editor can do it. Heck, I'll do it. We're just going in circles, and some editors are very fortunate they haven't been blocked yet as they've been repeatedly warned and given enough rope to hang themselves several times, and in spite of warnings they've done it. Sheesh! After this has been hatted, let's hope they leave their sins buried there and not repeat them elsewhere. If they do, block on sight. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC) Any interested editor can chime in at WP:ANI#Editor behavior at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

RFC on use of terms in first sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC was started to address the first paragraph of this article. In the interests of full transparency, at that time on 02:17 17 June (UTC), the first paragraph read as follows (without citations):

Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, politician, and writer who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories.

Over the course of the RfC, this paragraph was edited to the following, at the time of closure on 20 July at 15:20 UTC:

Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer and author who is known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda, debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines, and public health–related conspiracy theories. He is a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination in the 2024 presidential election.

The main discussion revolved around whether the terms used to describe the article subject's health-related positions, especially "propaganda" but also "conspiracy theories", met the WP:NPOV policy, were correctly weighted in the article according to their use in reliable sources, or otherwise violated the overarching WP:BLP policy. "Debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines" was not discussed, and will not be addressed in this close; see ^[1]. There were four main "solution themes" proposed:

• Keep both "anti-vaccine propaganda" and "health–related conspiracy theories" without change;
• Keep the general content under discussion, but alter the terminology, especially "propaganda", to a less pejorative word;
• Keep the general content under discussion, but delay it to avoid the lead becoming unbalanced;
• Remove both "anti-vaccine propaganda" and "health–related conspiracy theories".

This close finds that there is consensus against solution four (removing both of the terms). Editors have presented reliable sources which address the subject's health-related positions as a major part of his notability.

There is consensus in favour of solution 2 (removing the term "propaganda"), on grounds that it pejoratively implies deliberate deception. (Consensus in favour of this solution renders discussion for and against the first solution moot, as it cannot be implemented)

There was, incidentally, a clear consensus in this discussion that "propaganda" is a more contentious term than "conspiracy theory".

This close finds no consensus with regards to solution three (delaying the content under discussion)—viable arguments were raised against the information being delayed later than the end of the first paragraph. Ending the first sentence after "writer" remains a very viable option.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

^ The addition of "debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines" was added by first Valjean on 15 July and then, when reverted, Silver seren on 17 July. This appears to have followed a discussion below, in which the latter expressed a wish to add it to "the appropriate section". It was appended it to the first paragraph of the lead while a very relevant RfC was ongoing, without discussion. Silver seren had already !voted in the RfC; Valjean would do so afterwards with a WP:NOTFORUM-violating comment.

---

The first sentence of this article contains the terms in which the article subject has "promoted xyz propaganda and abc conspiracy theories." Do we keep these terms or remove in this WP:BLP? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• This has been discussed a lot above in Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Editor's_voice_re:_"propaganda"/"conspiracy_theories" and Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#The_evidence_for_the_two_claims_in_the_first_sentence_are_too_weak. It seems the terms are controverisal and probalby shouldnt use wikivoice on a BLP in the first sentence as it results in WP:UNDUE weight. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Whatever the result of the close is, the consensus should be based on the views of established users only, as was done in other contentious topics like the Race and Intelligence RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ridiculous. The views of those outside of the cabal must be taken into account as well. Who is involved is not a reason to stonewall. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your "greatest" contribution to Wikipedia in your less than 1000 edits in 8 years of being on this website has been to be obnoxiously argue about Wikipedia being biased against Rupert Sheldrake. I really don't see why anyone should take your opinions on anything seriously. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you want to use the term "obnoxious," that is certainly an apt description for your incivility, personal attacks, and clear contempt for those who disagree with you. I will be sure to refer the matter to ANI if you continue to show a total lack of regard for basic courtesy here. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I would avoid the term "propaganda," which is perorative, and therefore violates Tone. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "the term is often a pejorative one tending to connote such things as the discredited atrocity stories and deceptively stated war aims of World Wars I and II, the operations of the Nazis’ Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, and the broken campaign promises of a thousand politicians."[2] I don't think that comparing people to Hitler is effective polemics and it certainly isn't good style for an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  So, my first thought exactly echoed yours. But then as I was writing it up, I realized ... how does that critique not also apply to "conspiracy theories"? "Conspiracy theory" is a pejorative term, no? Prosecutors allege a criminal conspiracy in cases all the time, but even in that kind of circumstance we probably wouldn't have a sentence that said "The state argued a conspiracy theory", given the negative implications. (In light of this, I'm leaning towards keep both.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• See also: Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 2 § Anti-vaccine advocate (though it may well be propaganda). ––FormalDude (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I too would avoid the pejorative word "propaganda" on WP:TONE grounds. If they must be included, terms like "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories" should not be stated in wikivoice. Instead, it should be stated dispassionately what the sources say. See Deepak Chopra for some examples of more appropriate wording: "His discussions of quantum healing have been characterised as technobabble"; "The ideas Chopra promotes have regularly been criticized by medical and scientific professionals as pseudoscience." (emphasis mine). HappyWanderer15 (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• @Recobben: could you please self-revert your change to the first sentence? It's under active discussion in this RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Summary of discussion thus far: In the interest of arriving at some type of consensus rather than continuing to repeat the same back-and-forth ad infinitum, I just read through the discussions and polling below. Overall, I counted 17 votes for keeping the status quo and 19 votes advocating some sort of change, ranging from modest to substantial. I think it's fair to say that only a modest change is likely to achieve consensus. With that in mind, it seems that there is an overall consensus for keeping the term conspiracy theory but changing or removing the term propaganda. Some have suggested using the term misinformation instead. Would anyone like to comment on that possibility?

A second area of concern that has been frequently raised is tone: specifically the use of wikivoice. It's less clear what should be done about this, as there are very strong opinions on both sides that seem unlikely to budge. Some suggestions I've seen are to move the pejoratives out of the first sentence, and/or to state the pejoratives outside of wikivoice, e.g. "Kennedy's views of vaccines and public health have been widely described as conspiracy theories and misinformation." What do folks here think of these two possibilities? Are there any other suggestions for how concerns about tone could be addressed? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The first part of your summary seems like vote counting without analysis of the strength of arguments. CT55555(talk) 14:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I did try to summarize key arguments in the second half. However, I am not perfect. Feel free to expand on my summary. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Polling

• Keep content The terms aren't pejorative, they are descriptive per the dozens of reliable sources that have been describing the BLP subject for decades. Despite the subject's very recent presidential run announcement, their promotion of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories remains their primary source of notability. As an similar example, we wouldn't remove such descriptive terms from Alex Jones' lede if he announced a presidential run. Silverseren^C 02:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Alex Jones argument is WP:OSE Strawman used to equate this debatable case to a podcaster who is solely known for his controversial brimstone. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Before the recent presidential run, RFK Jr was solely known for his anti-vaccine and general pseudoscience views. No different than Alex Jones. Silverseren^C 06:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusions, but disagree that he was solely known for anti-vaccine stuff. While he was very well known for that, perhaps best known recently, he is also well known for his environmental work, and his civil rights work.

I have argued to keep both terms in the lead, below. CT55555(talk) 14:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep content I think one could quibble about the wording, but none of this violates WP:BLP. It is well sourced. The Alex Jones example given above is pertinent. His promotion of anti-vax information is central to his notability. I'm not deeply attached to the use of "propaganda" though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep "conspiracy theory" language, indifferent on "propaganda" language: I think we have enough sourcing for the conspiracy theory language in the lede. I don't doubt the sourcing on the propaganda language, just don't think its adds much. Most conspiracy theorists spread their theory and propagandize. I think "who has promoted anti-vaccine and health related conspiracy theories" or some variation would be fine. But I also wouldn't oppose keeping it as is. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

* Neither in the first sentence. Putting this kind of criticism into the first sentence is pretty much always wrong. If you have the sourcing, it's fine to put them in the article. But not in the first sentence. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)) *:Just to expand on this a bit, here are some politicians who were also mass murderers. In each case, the sourcing for their mass murders is excellent. In each case, it is not mentioned in the opening sentence: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Francisco Solano Lopez, Leopold II of Belgium. Only two of them even mention it in the first paragraph. If that can wait for later in the article, so can this. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC))

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all of those people have multiple reasons for their notability, unlike RFK Jr., who is primarily known for pushing propaganda and conspiracy theories. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

*:::I think he's better known for this[3]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC))

• Here's how he is described in Time, which is typical of reliable sources: "environmental lawyer, prolific author, master falconer, Hollywood husband, and anti-vaccine crusader."[4] Maybe the Biden campaign will succeed in making him best known as an anti-vaxxer, which is his major negative among Democrats. But we're not paid to do their work for them. TFD (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  No this is not an OSE issue, this is an issue of AP2 articles where editors like to use pejorative terms. No editors are interesting in dogpiling on top of Hitler as he is long dead. These articles provide a good example of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 01:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Jtbobwaysf: I mentioned OSE because it's a poor argument. Comparing this article to Hitler's is patently ridiculous.

  @Adoring nanny: Hard to imagine an article that has existed since 2004 is primarily notable for an event that occurred less than two months ago. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed comparing articles is always a tough one and not that useful due to OSE concerns. However, it is clear the two articles are different in one is a BLP and one is not. Meaning history buffs like one subject and politics people like another. It is remarkable that so many people care about this article and want to participate in an RFC (at least to me as I am indifferent other than it is a BLP that I felt was being excessive in its bashing of the subject). I think it is good when more people participate in an RFC so that part at least is useful. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

*:Having done my level-headed best to get an unbiased sample of sources below, I see that six of the seven sources say, when introducing RFK, that he is anti-vaccine. I would support including that very early in the article, but I still think it can wait for the second sentence. Three of the seven sources used strong language ("debunked claims" or "conspiracy theory") in the region where RFK was introduced, but only NBC did so in their first sentence of the portion that introduced RFK. The first-sentence placement proposed in this RFC is therefore WP:UNDUE as it is increasing the prominence above that in the sources themselves. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC))

• Note for closer: the above voter has since been indef blocked as an AE action. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Keep content per above. He is very well known these sorts of theories, and it's prominent enough to warrant a mention in the first sentence. There isn't any sourcing issues, either. The Alex Jones example is very potent. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content. Promoting disinformation and conspiracy are RFK Jr.'s job as head of CHD, and the foundation of his success there. So definitely belong in the first sentence. Possibly substitute "misinformation" or "disinformation" in place of "propaganda", as sources often use those words to describe what RFK Jr. does. -- M.boli (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content It is the most important aspect of this person and comes from several reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Amend content Remove the term "propaganda." The terms "conspiracy" and perhaps something like "misinformation" could be included, if and only if they are not stated in wikivoice. For example, "Kennedy's views on vaccines have been criticized as misinformation by medical professionals." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content. Reliable sources identify him as a conspiracy theorist
  1. The Guardian: "conspiracy theorist"
  2. Rolling Stone: "The environmental lawyer turned conspiracy theorist"
  3. NBC "...history of sharing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about vaccines."
  4. And importantly, NPR did an article on the 12 most influential vaccine hoax sharers and he made the list: "Take anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the "Disinformation Dozen"

Reliable sources speak of him pushing propaganda:

1. McGill University "The Anti-Vaccine Propaganda of Robert F. Kennedu Jr."
2. Scientific American "Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda completely unconnected to reality"
3. Richard Allen Williams said Kennedy was leading “a propaganda movement” that's opinion, but sufficiently important opinion to be also quoted in AP here.
4. More opinion from a medical doctor, on CBC "Kennedy's own family has disavowed his propaganda efforts"
5. News.com.au Robert F. Kennedy Jr kicked off Instagram for anti-vaccination propaganda

So, reliable sources call him both terms, which is exactly what should guide us, there is every reason to use both terms and, in my opinion, no credible reason not to. The significance of the use of both terms is high. He is not just a pusher of conspiracy theories, he is one of the top people who do so. It is appropriate to have these words at the very start of the lead. CT55555(talk) 14:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that mainstream media uses the term is an indication of their falling standards of professionalism, which have cost them dearly in reputation and public trust. Wikipedia should not emulate their decline. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge the reliability of these sources, you open discussion about these news sources. Until then, they are considered reliable sources here. Cortador (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the propaganda claim is true but whether the phrasing represents a neutral tone, which is a guideline for BLPs. Why not instead use a term such as polemics, which means the same thing but is non-pejorative? TFD (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

We need to be neutral and accurate. We don't need to concern ourselves about hurting people's feelings by accurately representing what reliable sources say. So, to answer your question, why not say "polemic"? Because that's not what the sources say. Neutrality doesn't mean compromise in the middle. CT55555(talk) 18:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

We need to call a spade a spade, not water down terminology. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

According to an article in NPR, you should use caution in using the expression "to call a spade a spade," because of the term's racist connotations.[https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade] IIRC, it was a term used by Archie Bunker.

While some sources, particularly those written to criticize Kennedy, use the term "propaganda," most do not. As I said, it is a matter of tone. If you want to write an article critical of Kennedy say propaganda. If you want to follow the MOS, don't. TFD (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Which part of the MOS is it that precludes us from saying "propaganda"? CT55555(talk) 20:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Tone: "BLPs should be written...in a dispassionate tone. Articles should document in a non-partisan.... Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking."

Also, see Impartial tone: "articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." TFD (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize: ...unless a person is commonly described... CT55555(talk) 00:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

And as you know, RFK Jr. is not commonly described as you think this article should. Is there any reason why this article should describe him in the same way as the vast majority of news articles in the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR and other mainstream news sources? Note that none of those sources endorse him. TFD (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't tell people what you think they know, especially when they have said something different in the same thread. I have literally shared a list of reliable sources that describe him as an anti-vaxxer. I don't think you and I are going to persuade each other, or anyone else at this point. So let's end this back and forth here, avoid the bludgeon and let others opine. CT55555 out. CT55555(talk) 01:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out that the Guardian is calling him a "conspiracy theorist" because of his endorsing of the claim that the CIA were involved in the killing of his father and his uncle Jack. They don't endorse him "promoting … health-related conspiracy theories" (our text), but simply refer to him as a "vaccine sceptic" in that respect. Pincrete (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not ''The Guardian'', its their breaking news editor in an analysis which incidentally is not considered rs per Wikipedia:NEWSORG. Their actual news reporting follows neutral tone which is what this article should do.

I don't know why CT55555 brought up anti-vaxxer. It's not in the article, not part of the RfC and I did not mention it. TFD (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

His anti-vaccine endeavours absolutely are in the article. Here's just a little bit from the lead:

"Since 2005, he has promoted the scientifically discredited link between vaccines and autism, and is founder and chairman of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Kennedy has emerged as a leading proponent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in the United States"

I brought it up because a significant amount of the misinformation, conspiracy theory, propaganda etc that he shares is about anti-vaxx stuff. It's completely germane to the discussion. CT55555(talk) 23:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. You wrote, "I have literally shared a list of reliable sources that describe him as an anti-vaxxer." [01:16, 18 June 2023] However we do not use the term "anti-vaxxer" in the article. I have repeatedly said that the article should reflect the facts about him in reliable sources. My objection is when the article uses emotive, value-laden and pejorative language. Your example shows that the facts can be presented without using unencyclopedic language. TFD (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you concerned that I used the "anti-vaxx" as an abbreviation of "anti-vaccine"? I think it's a fairly standard short hand. I'm really trying not to dominate the conversation here, bludgeon, so if this triviality is the point where we disagree, please drop it. CT55555(talk) 23:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, the article should avoid unencyclopedic terms and words. The choice of words and terms is not a triviality, it's the subject of the RfC. The title of the RfC is "RFC on use of terms in first sentence." TFD (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• How many attempts to whitewash the lead do we have now? If you are a Kennedy fanboy, just vote for him. Otherwise please refrain from using Wikipedia as advertisement page during the election period. --Julius Senegal (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think there are 12 talk page discussions currently on the page, that isn't counting those that were quickly deleted, or the editors who boldly changed it without discussing.

  It seems a lot of people don't like him being described as anti-vaccination. Interestingly, I've not seen anyone present any sources that refute it.

  It reminds me of flat earthers. All they would need to do is show us a photo of the ice walls and maybe they'd convince us. I'll reverse my stance here if someone shows a bunch of reliable sources saying how RFK is a champion of scientific analysis, a world renowned biologist, or a vaccine enthusiast. Until then, it seems a of people don't like something, but are unwilling or unable to back up their objection. CT55555(talk) 20:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It is for this reason that I ran the RFC as I have seen numerous recent objections to it. I am not a "fanboy" as you assert and could care less about USA politics. These type of hostile partisan views fail to WP:AGF are rather one of WP:BATTLE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep content as it is reliably sourced and it is what RFK Jr is primarily known for. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content. It's what this person has been best known for for over a decade, and it would be editorializing it to call it anything different, or to leave it out of the first sentence that includes his other endeavors. The terms in question are used in a matter-of-fact "businesslike" way and well sourced. —siroχo 06:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move the pejoratives to a second sentence If we want to make sure no one with Kennedy leanings reads our article, but instead stops after the first sentence, we should keep the words "propaganda" and "conspiracy" in the first sentence. I'm sure most of you won't miss their patronage, but I'm not so happy about having them go to the seedier side of the internet to do their pre-election research. A little tact goes a long way. Let's keep the first sentence of bios (particularly political bios) 100% undeniable, objective, non-inflammatory fact, and leave the "the consensus of reliable sources said" things to at least the second sentence. Miner Editor (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• So the moment someone notable for pseudoscience runs for political office in any form, we should restructure the lede about their primary notability (being the pseudoscience) so that it doesn't mention it right away? Silverseren^C 19:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously. I mean, the point of an encyclopedia is to be kind to politicians, right? </sarcasm> XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Remove (ideally) or move the pejoratives to a second sentence (second choice ). This fails to comply with MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE in it fails "avoiding subjective or contentious terms". I see this failure starting to spread across many wiki articles, not only this article. If anyone is non-mainstream they are labeled a conspiracy theorist (or any other pejorative term) by hit-piece publications and then we wikipedia editors use that to dog-pile on top. There are few neutral publications these days, and many of the RS listed above are far from neutral in regards to their positions on USA's politics. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove 'propaganda' but keep 'conspiracy theory'. "Propaganda" is an inflammatory term that adds no information other than one's disapproval of RFK Jr. It doesn't even imply falsehood, since e.g. war propaganda can be partially or completely true. The fact that mainstream media uses the term is an indication of their falling standards of professionalism, which have cost them dearly in reputation and public trust. Wikipedia should not emulate their decline. "Conspiracy theory" is not NPOV either, but since there's no alternate neutral term that describes the same concept, and since some conspiracy theorists embrace the term, I'm in favor of keeping the term. --Bowlhover (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content Keep conspiracy theories, change "propaganda" to more specific "misinformation" or "disinformation" - The quotes from the sources listed describe him as this, and we could easily find and add many more sources which say the same that already exist in this article.---Avatar317^(talk) 05:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC) - I now agree that the term "propaganda" can have too broad a meaning - good "war propaganda" to support the war, "propaganda" demonizing the enemy. - and the sources seem to interchangeably use many words to describe his activities. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Neither in the first sentence - Not as written as it seems more interested in condemnation than information. Some - fairly universally - used descriptor such as "anti-vaccine activist", possibly would be apt in the first sentence. The proposed/present text is vague "promoted … health-related conspiracy theories", when what he appears to be known for iro 'health' is anti-vax proseletysing, not other health-related CTs. I'm inclined to agree with Adoring nanny, that Putting this kind of criticism into the first sentence is pretty much always wrong., but a minimum requirement to do so is near universal use of these highly critical descriptors and it being the sole claim to notability. I see substantial, but not universal use of these 'labels', and he clearly has other claims to notability. Delaying and expanding the coverage of his "bad science", allows a more nuanced, informative (and informed) coverage of the topic IMO, apart from avoiding an opening sentence seemingly designed to "shut down" discussion before any actual info is imparted.Pincrete (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Split the sentence in two - Per above. The claims are sourced well and should not be removed, but to me the prose of the sentence comes off very strong. It may read better if split. The sentences could be "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer, politician, and writer." and "He has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories." They should of course remain in the same paragraph the lead sentence currently occupies. LVMH11 (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove both from first sentence, I don't agree that the conspiracy beliefs are what he is best known for, and likely not what he will be known for in the future. Neither topic looks to be central to his campaign in office anyways.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content, broadly speaking - But rewording it may be merited. Sources seem to agree that his anti-vaccine message is a key part of what makes him notable, and so it is merited to be in the first sentence. The specific phrasing could be modified to ensure it matches more closely what WP:RS say, but the general gist is definitely supported by said reliable sources. His anti-vaccine views at the very least must be mentioned in the lead, even if the specific wording of "conspiracy theory" or "propaganda" is not. Fieari (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep conspiracy theory; narrow remove propaganda. This was a surprisingly tough one for me. On the one hand, yes, Wikipedia has its own rule about tone. But I actually think that's met here: there seems to be a minority of voices suggesting that pejorative descriptions are never appropriate, but we have plenty of articles that use the term conspiracy theory in the title, let alone the first sentence: see, e.g., Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death, World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories.
  That said, I do think there's a WP:NPOV (specifically, WP:DUE/WP:WIKIVOICE) aspect to this, although my interpretation may be unique. I think that the descriptions of Kennedy's actions do fit WP:V and WP:RS—I'm not contesting their accuracy. But, when using pejorative language, I think we have to be sure that our tone doesn't reflects the vernacular used by only a distinct minority of reliable sources, even if the majority of sources do not factually contradict that vernacular. In other words, I don't think Wikipedia should, in its own voice, have a tone more extreme tone than the majority of reliable sources. Several reliable sources note Kennedy's affinity for or promotion of conspiracy theories: New Yorker New York Times (NYT again), The Guardian, NBC News, The Hill, Forbes, etc. As such, I don't think the use of the term here imparts an extremity of tone only reflected by a distinct minority of publications. On the other hand, very few use the term propaganda, particularly without attribution. I couldn't find the term used in any of the aforementioned publications, except in this Guardian article, which attributes to a third party. As such, I support the inclusion of conspiracy theory (even if in the first sentence) and support the removal of propaganda.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just to point out that the Gdn source - the first you cite - is speaking of him endorsing 'conspiracy theories' relating to CIA involvement in his father's and uncle's killings. Our text specifically talks of him promoting "health-related conspiracy theories". The Gdn simply calles him a "vaccine sceptic" on the health issue. So, much milder than WP. Pincrete (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think you're understating the Guardian a bit. The Guardian opens by calling him a "conspiracy theorist and vaccine skeptic," and, later, when it says, The site also detailed Kennedy’s transformation from environmental campaigner to vaccine skeptic and conspiracy theorist ..., the phrase "conspiracy theorist" is linked to this article: "Instagram and Facebook suspend Robert Kennedy Jr’s anti-vaccine group"--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep content he says that 5G is used by Zuckerberg and Bezos to control you. Also that WiFi causes cancer, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, Fauci killed people with AZT, glyphosate is "strongly linked" to celiacs, he hasn't stopped saying vaccines cause autism, though he's completely changed his explanations for how that might be occurring. These aren't a few quirky views that he holds, this isn't just asking questions or skepticism, these are central to his world view.DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Reword slightly. The language is a bit un-encyclopedic in tone. "Has been criticised for xyz" would be better. Also worth noting that he is described in a range of ways in RSes and the current language is right at one end of the scale. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Ser! expresses the point better than me. He's clearly a conspiracy theorist and that's the main reason he's known, but the wording just sounds a bit odd. Even a subtle change like "who is known for promoting anti-vaccine and health related conspiracy theories" would solve this issue IMO. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  PieLover3141592654, that's not a bad suggestion. I have implemented it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Keep content - as long as he's depicted that way prominently in reliable sources, then it's WP:DUE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.126.169.174 (talk • contribs)

That's not what WP:DUE means at all. Miner Editor (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep content based on reliable sources. I may potentially be persuaded that there is a better term than "propaganda" here but I believe that the term "conspiracy" unequivocally fits. I err to the side of keep because of a lot of conspiratorial comments trying to attack the reliability of scientific experts and mainstream media sources and I cannot fathom how we would build an encyclopedia without them. Jorahm (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I would also like to add that "misinformation" may be a better term than "propaganda" but still oppose any effort to undermine reliable sources by removing reliable information. Jorahm (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Keep content or reword slightly. As more and more sources cover Kennedy, it's exceedingly common to see his conspiracy theory and anti-vaccine activity as part of his introduction. I'm not picky about "misinformation" vs. "propaganda". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content He's been doing this for almost two decades now. Shying away from saying so would amount to a wilful denial of the facts. XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  The New York Times now says Mr. Kennedy has made his political career on false conspiracy theories about not just Covid-19 and Covid vaccines but disproved links between common childhood vaccines and autism, 5G and other things [5]. XOR'easter (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Remove propaganda, and move conspiracy theory out of the first sentence, per Adoring nanny and Jtbobwaysf. Using the word propaganda in this way fails WP:NPOV, because it's just away to pejoratively frame advocacy the speaker disapproves of. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  User:GretLomborg, you are emulating the views of fringe editors, one now indefinitely blocked, and the other on the brink. Bend your mind toward RS, not content toward your own ideas of "neutral". Your whole comment is a poster example of fringe POV pushing. Those editors are not good examples. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Valjean I will remind you about the policies Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. There's literally nothing in my comment that could properly be considered "fringe POV pushing." I only expressed an opinion that the first sentence of the Wikipedia BLPs should follow WP:NPOV and not be stridently condemnatory. Do you really think it's somehow a pro-fringe view to suggest moving "conspiracy theory" out of the first sentence into, say, the second? I think your reply to me was inappropriate and should be struck. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Remove any heavily slanted or personal opinion-based language and present Robert's views in as matter of fact manner as possible, both here and in the Wikipedia page for his campaign, and do not only include his more questionable sensational views, include the ones that are pro-democracy, anti-oligarchy, and economically leftist as well. David A (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  None of the language currently in the article intro is "heavily slanted" or "personal opinion-based". All of it presents his views in a manner that is quite matter-of-fact. XOR'easter (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep "conspiracy theories", change "propaganda" to "misinformation", there's four sources just in the lead about the two statements, and there's most likely more in the rest of the article. I don't see why it would be removed, as it's backed by reliable sources - so there's no WP:BLP/WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE issues. That said, "propaganda" is pretty vague, and should be adjusted to "misinformation". LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove propaganda and move conspiracy theory out of the first sentence this is clearly not in wikivoice. it presents as WP:NPOV when pejoratives are used in the very first sentence Anon0098 (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove It violates BLP and NPOV. ~ HAL333 17:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep it is well sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Neutrally stating what is reported in reliable sources. This is all reliably sourced, maybe propaganda should be misinformation but that's a minor change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, there is nothing in policy that says we can't use labels in BLPs. The important point here is unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep "conspiracy theories", change "propaganda" to "misinformation" per User:LilianaUwU {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep but "misinformation" is a better word here than "propaganda" because it correctly implies that the conspiracy theories are false, whereas the word "propaganda", despite its negative connotation, does not. (It's possible to propagandize for a theory or government or candidate without circulating falsehoods.) NightHeron (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Remove propaganda, "conspiracy theories" covers it well enough. This content should not be stated in wikivoice and probably not in the first sentence; I favor HappyWanderer15's suggestion. This content is clearly worthy of inclusion but currently does read as a hit-piece.LM2000 (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move such information to a second sentence at the very least. I am of the mind - and this also applies to articles like The New York Post and Marjorie Taylor Greene - that if you have to create WP:REFCLUTTER, whether bundled or otherwise, in order to justify using contentious labels in the very first sentence of an article (especially given MOS:LEADCITE, though it does concede to WP:BLP), then it would be better to move this information elsewhere and keep the first sentence at least somewhat simpler, letting the rest of the article do the talking. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 03:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as well-sourced and the defining aspects of his public career for the past 10+ years. But basically support changing "propaganda" to "misinformation" or similar per LilianaUwU due to vagueness and not being the exact right word. Skynxnex (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as incredibly well sourced and a defining characteristic of his campaign and activism. Keep the material, change the phrasing. It's undeniable that RFK has spread anti-vaccine material and that it's become a defining part of the reason he is as well known as he is, as well as his spreading of conspiracy theories, but I share the concerns of some users above regarding the phrasing. Not in the "Oh No! Wikipedia Has Fallen To The Woke Liberal Brain Virus And Lost All Credibility" kind of way, but in the fact that the sentence "RFK is an X Y Z etc etc, who has spread propaganda" does not look good. Much like we don't say "George Santos is a politician who has lied about a number of statements he has made", in spite of the fact that he has, and that it's about as much a part of his reason for notability as the anti-vaccine conspiracy theorism is for this guy. If you want to define him as an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist (which sources back up that he is), go for it. Something along the lines of Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer, politician, writer, anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist would be better than the current phrasing. As a second option, splitting the sentence in two per LVMH11's suggestion would be good, but the current opening sentence doesn't look good at all imv. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I see your point that anti-vaccine propagandist and health-related conspiracy theorist could be better than the current somewhat weaselly "who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories." -- M.boli (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Remove Both Coming out of retirement to share my opinion on this... Including these terms in the first sentence(!) violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. While properly sourced and possibly accurate, they are not the most important facts about this notable person. Explaining his detailed positions (and apparently hot takes from some media outlets on his positions... which he has refuted directy) in the appropriate sections of the article is fine. However, in the lead sentence? That's ridiculous. Wikipedia is not the place for political agendas of editors. Obviously more notable facts than his nuanced position on vaccines that make more sense in the first sentence of this BLP: (1) he's running for president in 2024, (2) he's the son of RFK and nephew of the former president JFK, (3) he's married to a famous actress. These are easily more notable than comments he's made on vaccines. Editors who insist on including them in the first sentence of the article are making their biases crystal clear. --SkotyWA^T_C 22:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  RFK Jr.'s book "The Real Anthony Fauci" was, of course all about the famous actress. That is the hundred pages about how HIV doesn't cause AIDS. And his movie explaining that Covid vaccines are a conspiracy to kill Black people is chock-full of his pre-teen insights about his famous uncle. Probably the lawsuits about 5G, smart meters, and Hunter Biden's laptop are deeply illuminating to historians studying his late father. That's why the reliable sources routinely identify RFK Jr. as husband of famous actress and nephew of famous uncle and don't bother with the disinformation, conspiracy theories, and anti-vax activism. (Sarcasm) The above has to be the least serious response to the question on the table written so far. -- M.boli (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  So far. The night is young.... XOR'easter (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Tell me you don't understand what an encyclopedia is without telling me you don't understand. We are not discussing the content of a news article, blog entry, or facebook post here. We are talking about a biographical article in an encyclopedia for a person that is alive. To include two of his more inane positions in the first sentence is equivalent to highlighting "the slap" in the first sentence of Will Smith's article (note: you have to read all the way to the 4th paragraph of that article before it's mentioned). The subject of this article is running for president! That's clearly a way more important fact to list first. His lineage is particularly notable. In his interviews, far more time is dedicated to his ideas/plans around foreign policy, defense spending, and immigration than on these two nit-pick topics. Do they belong somewhere in the article? Definitely! Are they the most important things Wikipedia can share with people about this person? No way! Where do they belong? A section in the article covering them in an even handed manner. Probably a mention somewhere in the introduction, but not in the first sentence or even the first paragraph! --SkotyWA^T_C 17:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Manufacturing conspiracy theories and anti-vax propaganda are RFK Jr.'s literal occupation, as the chair of Children's Health Defense. Most of the articles in the reliable news sources describing his decision to run for president ID-ed him as an anti-vaxer or conspiracist or spreader of misinformation, usually in the first one or two sentences. An encyclopedia article which does not lead off with this living person's primary claim to notability and primary occupation would be malpractice. -- M.boli (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  He has responded to the claims in these sources (and others repeating the same trope) multiple times in recent interviews. Here's one example:

  "I've never been anti-vaccine. I'm called anti-vaccine because that's a way of marginalizing and discredditing me in the view of the public. I've had all my children vaccinated. I was fully vaccinated and I've never been anti-vaccine. But what I've said is I'm pro-science and pro-safety and we ought to subject vaccines... to rigorous, placebo controlled trials that are mandated for every other medicine. It's the only medicine that's exempt from pre-licensing safety trials..."

  Insisting that the claims in these news sources be repeated in the first sentence of a biographical article on the man violates WP:WEIGHT and is borderline WP:BLPGOSSIP. I don't refute that they are properly sourced and the content belongs somewhere in the article. I'm not sure why it being in the first sentence is a hill you feel you must die on. The current third paragraph of the article does a much better job presenting the points (using many of the same sources) without it being blatantly guilty of WP:BLPGOSSIP. So I stand by my !vote to remove them both from the first sentence. Keep the third paragraph of the intro though. That makes sense. --SkotyWA^T_C 19:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Remove both, for the sake of what remains of Wikipedia's credibility. The term "propaganda" is loaded with POV, and the term "conspiracy theory", written in earnest, instantly discredits anyone using it. Given the fact that our encyclopedia asserts that it is false that "children can be effectively protected from disease solely by natural immunity", we are already hanging by a slender thread in the eyes of any objective readers still hoping to take this project seriously. Eric ^talk 02:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. There's no way we can go about writing this BLP without including his views on and work against vaccines as they have been the majority, if not the only thing, that has kept him in the public eye in the past decade or so. Pretty much any recent news article on him will at least mention his anti vaccine stance, even if they do not comment further. And there's no way we can include his views and avoid describing them as conspiracy theories and some form of propaganda/misinformation/disinformation(not sure which term exactly should be used, other commenters have made good arguments on this) when his views are directly contradictory to the overwhelming scientific consensus and are well described as conspiracy theories in RS. Cannolis (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with the points you made, but none them imply that this must be included in the first sentence of the article. I agree it should get full treatment with NPOV somewhere in the article, but there's no way his position on vaccines is the most important point about this person. The fact that he's running for president isn't mentioned until the last sentence of the intro. That's a way more basic and relevant fact to present to Wikipedia readers! His lineage (son of RFK), his alma mater (Harvard), his occupation (lawyer) are all more relevant and basic facts to lead with. His position on vaccines is presented much more clearly and closer to an NPOV in literally the (current) third paragraph of the intro. Isn't that enough? Why is it necessary that it be in the first sentence? --SkotyWA^T_C 19:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  He has worked as an anti-vaccine advocate for decades. He's only been running for president, or any public office, within the last few months. WP:NOTNEWS DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  He also worked as an environmental lawyer for over a decade, yet that didn't make it into the first sentence! These terms in the first sentence are pretty blatant violations of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BLPGOSSIP. --SkotyWA^T_C 13:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Weight is attributed to a thing not based on how long one did that thing but based on how much the reliable sources write about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American environmental lawyer", it's in the first sentence. And like his environmental work, his antivaccine work should be represented in the first sentence. Cannolis (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I see that RFK Jr.'s notability has shifted from married famous actress (July 1) to graduated from Harvard (July 7). Because he graduated from Harvard we are supposed to yank his primary occupation and primary claim to fame from the lede sentence. No comment. -- M.boli (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Lol, you got me! I used different examples of basic truths about this person as potential facts to lead with in the article rather than repeating WP:BLPGOSSIP. Guilty as charged. We could also accurately call him an "environmental activist" in the first sentence. I can provide even more facts that are more basic and relevant that attempting to smear this person in the first sentence of their own BLP. Point is, saying this person promoted "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories" in the first sentence violates WP:WEIGHT especially since these same topics are shared again one paragraph later (still in the intro) much more even handedly with WP:NPOV. I'm still confused why having these terms in the first sentence is a hill you're willing to die on. --SkotyWA^T_C 13:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Around in circles. The lede sentence describes what reliable sources tell us RFK Jr. does. His occupation. The activities he has become primarily notable for. From NPR just this morning:

  Since Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launched his campaign challenging President Biden for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination, he has given hours of interviews to podcasts, magazines and TV networks. He paints a dark, conspiratorial picture of the world, bristling with debunked theories, misleading claims and outright falsehoods.

  — RFK Jr. is building a presidential campaign around conspiracy theories

  You don't like it, take it up with RFK Jr. Over and out. -- M.boli (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  The lede sentence shows up as a blurb on Google search results and on other search engines and platforms that pull from Wikipedia when a query is made. Those with a POV to push want to make sure that it is pushed as widely as possible in this way. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  If that is true, I think that they should reconsider their viewpoints. Say what you want about Kennedy's more paranoid traits, but at least he is a well-intentioned leftist who is genuinely on the side of helping the people at large, whereas Biden and Trump are solidly on the side of the oligarchy. In addition, considering The Economist's polling results, Kennedy would apparently have a much easier time defeating Donald Trump than Joe Biden would, so given a choice between a genuinely well-intentioned and freedom-loving leftist, who happens to be a bit paranoid but wants to help and unite, rather than divide and slander, the working class, and an extremely narcissistic and irresponsible, oafish, sexist, and corrupt egomaniacal divisive demagogue, which would you all consider to be the much lesser evil? In my view, Kennedy does not seem nearly bad enough to deserve all of the character-assassination that he receives here and especially elsewhere. At least he means well and is not in the politics game for the sake of personal bribes or selfish power-tripping. David A (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Please check out WP:NOTFORUM CT55555(talk) 19:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Change "propaganda" to "misinformation" and remove conspiracy theories - I believe that propaganda is somewhat of an uncommon term to describe health related theories. I believe misinformation is the term more used today. In terms of removing "public health–related conspiracy theories" I believe that is pretty broad and the anti-vaccine information is better for the first sentence. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• I would prefer "promoted inaccurate information about vaccines" to "anti-vaccine propaganda". But something about his life-long advocacy against vaccination must be in the lead paragraph. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content This is what RFK is primarily known for, and it is backed up by plenty of reliable sources. Cortador (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Keep current wording ("promoting anti-vaccine propaganda,[2][3][4] debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines,[5] and public health–related conspiracy theories.") Each word is backed by RS and is appropriate. That some object to "propaganda" is worrying: "The fact that mainstream media uses the term is an indication of their falling standards of professionalism, which have cost them dearly in reputation and public trust. Wikipedia should not emulate their decline." That is a fringe attitude that is exactly the opposite of Wikipedia's purpose. We should be using the terms used by mainstream RS. We should emulate them. Editors should bend their minds toward what RS say, not bend content toward their own ideas of "neutral". Neutering what RS say is a violation of NPOV by interposing editorial opinions of what they consider "neutral" into the picture. Especially in the literal war against science and vaccines carried on by people like Kennedy, disinformation and propaganda are their tools. This is not some scientific "disagreement". It's a battle that's been going on since the first vaccine was used. The tactics are devious and deeply dishonest, with online groups praising mothers who refuse to vaccinate their children, and when they get sick, refusing to take their sick children to those "evil MDs" and allowing them to die of things like whooping cough, which can be treated. (I observed this happen in Australia when lurking on an anti-vax Yahoo! group.) Then the mother is treated like a hero and martyr when accused of child abuse. It's sickening. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Keep content. Not much more I can say that hasn't been said already. I take the side of WP:YESBIAS, and I'm not convinced that there are any problems with the current wording. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Starting a list of sources below. To try for an unbiased sample, I am going to start with the most recent sources I can find in NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, and BBC. I wish I had typed that before looking at any of them, but unfortunately I already looked at the NYT one. Sources coming up. Anyone should feel free to add to the list.

• NYT[6] the 69-year-old environmental lawyer and vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr
• ABC[7] Vaccines are mentioned only briefly. A whole bunch of other sites say that ABC edited them out. The ones I saw were non-RS, i.e. the NY post here[8], but I imagine one could find the claim in an RS somewhere. By my procedure above, this would not count, but it's still interesting.
• NPR[9] Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a climate-change activist and vaccine skeptic
• CBS[10]Kennedy, a nephew of President John F. Kennedy and the son of his slain brother Robert F. Kennedy, was once a best-selling author and environmental lawyer who worked on issues such as clean water.

But more than 15 years ago, he became fixated on a belief that vaccines are not safe. He emerged as one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement, and his work has been described by public health experts and even members of his own family as misleading and dangerous.

• NBC[11] Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has attracted criticism for his history of sharing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about vaccines.
• BBC[12] (para. breaks omitted): The 69-year-old is the son of assassinated Senator Robert F Kennedy and nephew of President John F Kennedy. The environmental lawyer's campaign treasurer, John E Sullivan, confirmed the filing on Wednesday. Mr Kennedy is an outspoken anti-vaccine campaigner. Instagram removed his account in 2021 for "repeatedly sharing debunked claims"

* CNN[13] Instagram announced Sunday it had lifted its ban on Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the anti-vaccine activist who has launched a presidential bid, two years after it shut down Kennedy’s account for breaking its rules related to Covid-19. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC))

Notice how none of these sources describe Kennedy using contentious labels, as this article does. They simply describe his positions, and how they are viewed. But to read some of the comments on this page, you'd think these mainstream news reporters were "whitewashing" the facts. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This proves that if you make a list of sources using the criterion "does not call Kennedy a conspiracy theorist", you get a list of sources that do not call him a conspiracy theorist. What is that supposed to prove? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

For one thing, it proves that it's possible to write an article about him without using NPOV terms, which it is Wikipedia policy to do. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it is Wikipedia's policy to describe him as done in Reliable Sources; that means looking at how ALL RS sources describe him, not just the cherry-picked ones. We've got lots of sources in this article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to any policy that says that? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch lists many circumstances where the terminology in sources should not be used and WP:BLPSTYLE (which is policy) sets high standards for the types of words we can use in biographies of living persons. TFD (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

:::That was not a criterion. After finding the NYT source, I stated in advance what I would do for the other six. Furthermore, if you look at the actual quotes above, it should be obvious that I was not cherry picking. For example the NBC one. @Hob Gadling and @Avatar317 please strike the false statement that my criteria were not what I said they were, or provide evidence. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC))

I would submit that those who would insist on the term "propaganda" are the ones cherry picking; it's just that they are cherry picking the sources with the most pejorative possible language. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not live in an English-speaking country and I have no idea whether NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, and BBC are the most reliable sources, the most popular sources, or just the sources people with your POV typically get your information from. So, for all I know, this could just be your echo chamber and be effectively cherry-picking for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Those are all mainstream media sources in the US and Britain. BBC And NPR are public broadcasters. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

So? Is it a complete list of mainstream media sources in the US and Britain and public broadcasters? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I prefer sources that know what they are talking about, such as WP:SBM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not Kennedy's falsehoods are "propaganda" or "conspiracies" is not a biomedical issue, but a political issue. Miner Editor (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. When some layperson such as Kennedy makes claims about medicine, medical scientists are competent to recognize them as factual, or as having a tiny bit of merit, or as conspiratorial bullshit. Especially if they are experts on medical pseudoscience, as the SBM people are. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether Kennedy's falsehoods are "propaganda" or a "conspiracy" or him just being wrong goes towards Kennedy's motivation. Scientists do not have an inside track on his motivation. Miner Editor (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That might be true as to propaganda, but I'm not sure it's true as to conspiracy theory. Saying that someone spreads conspiracy theories doesn't imply that the person does so disingenuously. That said, I agree that medical scientists aren't experts as to what constitutes a conspiracy theory.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Come on, it is obvious that he is spreading conspiracy theories. See "Deadly Immunity" [14]: The story of how government health agencies colluded with Big Pharmacy to hide the risks of thimerosal from the public is a chilling case study of institutional arrogance, power and greed. That article is full of coverups of connections that do not exist. And SBM is competent for telling whether a connection exists or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait, what? I'm not sure what you're trying to say, and no interpretation I can come up with relates to what I said. My point was that scientific experts, while certainly in a unique position to determine truth/falisty of a claim, aren't in a unique position to call the claim a conspiracy theory. That said, as you can tell from my !vote above, I support including "conspiracy theory" in the first sentence. --Jerome Frank Disciple 17:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I read your sentence That might be true as to propaganda, but I'm not sure it's true as to conspiracy theory as doubting that he actually is a conspiracy theorist. You can't expect me to read your entire opus before responding to that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::I do agree that he is spreading theories that are at best speculative and unproven. However, that is not sufficient reason to put it into the first sentence of the article. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC))

Can you say more about that? Because that does't seem true to me. I could share propaganda and share a conspiracy theory and not know I am doing so, but still do it. I don't think this is a matter of motivation, I think it is a matter of action. CT55555(talk) 17:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The interesting thing about this conversation, to me, is that all that those of use dissenting from the current wording are saying is that we should dispassionately share what the sources say (i.e., minimizing the use of pejoratives, and if they are used, not using them in wikivoice). Your use of the word "bullshit" here, along with your other comments on the talk page, suggest you have strong feelings on this issue, which is fine. That's why MOS and BLP guidelines are there: so that we can tone down those passions when writing encyclopedic content. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for implying that the sources you listed were cherry-picked. What I meant overall is that there are thousands of sources mentioning Kennedy's actions regarding this subject, and we should follow what the majority of them say. As for the ones you listed, I wouldn't be surprised (and could probably find examples) of THE SAME news source alternately calling him a spreader of "misinformation", "disinformation" and "propaganda" all at different times/articles, even by the same author. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

And in today's WaPo article what RFK Jr. does is labeled misinformation. Focusing on the word propaganda misses the point. Add up all the disinformation and misinformation and propaganda and all the time his messages are described as deceptive or just plain wrong. Peddling propaganda is what RFK Jr. does for a living. Huge numbers of reliable sources and academic experts describe him doing it. I might agree that another word would sound less fraught -- I feel it carries baggage of mid-20th century conflicts. But removing from the lede sentence his primary activity in the public would be malpractice. M.boli (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Right. If he becomes president, Paul Offit may have to flee the country because Kennedy said he should be locked up and the key thrown away [15] - I don't know whether the crime was saving thousands of lives by developing vaccines or contradicting Kennedy's fantasies.

"Disinformation" would mean that he does not believe what he says, and there is no evidence for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 21 June 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

Delete, "who has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and public health-related conspiracy theories". I have provided reasoning for this change in the talk section. I did see there is a new source that was provided, but I'm pretty busy this week. Hopefully I can find some time later this week or next to go through it. Cmsmith93 (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

agreed! 107.77.197.155 (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

No action This is already under discussion above and does not need yet another section. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

How do I get in touch with the editors? It looks like someone deleted my other comment here without even discussing it. Cmsmith93 (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

There is already a heap of sections about exactly that, and here are a few of them:

• Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#RFC on use of terms in first sentence
• Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#« Anti-vaccine propaganda » is obviously a biased and imprecise assertion
• Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#the first paragraph
• Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#I propose taking out the propaganda of stating his views are discredited and propaganda unless proven

That is already three too many, and I only linked the first four. Why don't you go to one of those and read the existing reasoning there? If you have a new valid counter-argument, bring it. If not, go away.

How many such practically identical sections do you think there should be?

On top of that, there is also a FAQ at the top of this page, saying

• Q: Why does the article say Kennedy promotes "conspiracy theories"?
• A: Consensus is that multiple, independent, reliable sources describe Kennedy as an advocate and/or promoter of conspiracy theories.

Actually, any new section demanding the same change again should be deleted on sight. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The evidence in the first sentence is insubstantial for backing up the two claims...

Please do not just delete my comment/post without engaging with me. No editor's have engaged in discussion with my comments here. What is the point of having a Talk tab if editors aren't going to argue and counter argue?

Firstly, I apologize for continuing the epic quest of the first sentence. Nobody has taken a dive into these sources though... So, the first claim is that RFK Jr, "has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda". The first article, Scientific American. "Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda" -- There is no source/link so this isn't actually evidence, it's just a random statement from the author. Second article, NBC News. "A new video" -- no video is linked, similar to the problem in the first article. "was recently banned from Instagram" -- this is a red herring fallacy, and I suspect it is used to make RFK Jr look bad since it adds nothing to the main point of the article. "for spreading Covid-19 vaccine conspiracy theories" -- no link. Let's move on to the third article, AP News. "he launched into an anti-vaccine rant" -- link? "people assembled for a far right conference" -- how do you know they're far-right? Perhaps some poll was taken, but that is not in the article. "legal, scientific and public health consensus" -- links? "which uses slanted information, cherry-picked facts and conspiracy theories to spread distrust of the COVID-19 vaccines" -- links? This article has no video of the conference and is seriously lacking in sufficient evidence otherwise. The second claim is that RFK Jr, "as promoted health-related conspiracy theories". Before I dive into the articles, let me give some definitions of conspiracy theory. "'conspiracy' - an agreement among conspirators. 'conspirator' - one who conspires. 'conspire' - to plan secretly an unlawful act." -- The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. "'conspiracy' - a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." -- Oxford American Desk Dictionary & Thesaurus. The first article, The Hill. "Kennedy, a conspiracy theorist and prominent anti-vaxxer" -- no links. Second source, The Wrap. "Shortly after, Hines addressed her husband’s claims..." -- what follows is RFK Jr's wife's opinions about RFK Jr's Nazi reference. This has nothing to do with conspiracy's, as relating to the definitions above. Third article, The Guardian. "Kennedy has campaigned on environmental issues but is also a leading vaccines conspiracy theorist" -- no link. I see journalists stating that he's a conspiracy theorist, but there's no stronger evidence to back it up. If you do not see an issue with what I've pointed out so far please consider the following scenario. If I were to write, and publish, an article on substack and state, "RFK Jr has not promoted anti-vaccine propaganda, nor has he promoted health-related conspiracy theories." without a link/source to my evidence, then my claim would be just as strong evidence as the articles above saying he has promoted these things. In conclusion, these sources are insufficient as evidence to support the claims that RFK Jr 'has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda and health-related conspiracy theories'. Stronger, sufficient, evidence is required to backup such claims. Until such evidence presents itself, the first sentence should be removed. Cmsmith93 (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You realize our talk pages are archived right? Not deleted? Recommend you review the archives, in particular Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_3#The_evidence_for_the_two_claims_in_the_first_sentence_are_too_weak., in which you made an identical post(just with better formatting) and multiple editors engaged in discussion with you. There is also an active RFC above. Cannolis (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Quoth Cmsmith93: No editor's have engaged in discussion with my comments here. What is the point of having a Talk tab if editors aren't going to argue and counter argue? And at the same time further above: someone deleted my other comment here without even discussing it. The archived discussion of @Cmsmith93's substantially identical earlier post shows 33 entries by 9 participants including many by @Cmsmith93. I doubt Cmsmith93's current complaint is in good faith. -- M.boli (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"Discussion in the press" for EPA Administrator

We should remove the idea that RFK Jr. was under consideration as Obama administration EPA Administrator. Right now the lede says There was discussion in the press that the first Obama administration was possibly considering him as a candidate for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.... (Emphasis not in the original). Having looked for sources, I now understand why this statement is so weaselly. I found little evidence RFK Jr. was ever a candidate for that nomination.

Currently two references are in this article:

• The Politico article explains why such a nomination would be unlikely. It didn't say RJK Jr. was on the Obama transition team list, in effect this article is explaining why he wouldn't be. This article was published the three days after the election.
• The Red, Green and Blue article citation copies a "shortlist of possible EPA candidates being discussed in the mainstream media" from a Bloomberg article published 1 day after election. (Bloomberg behind paywall, I can't see it.)

My search of news sources finds mostly articles from late 2008 saying that environmental activists were suggesting it. An example is this LA Times article, one week post-election, saying "Other candidates for the federal job, according to green groups, include Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ...."

No evidence he was on the Obama administration list of actual candidates being vetted for he post. This would be consistent with the two current citations, and thus the current weasel wording.

I think we should just drop it. That RJK Jr.'s name was bruited about for a job he was not in the running for is hardly encyclopedia-worthy -- M.boli (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Time magazine saw fit to mention it on June 14. Seems encyclopedic enough to me: "In 2009, the Obama Administration reportedly briefly considered him for an EPA appointment, but decided it would be too controversial" Miner Editor (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't that reinforce my point? 14 years later a throw-away line in a reported article says reportedly briefly considered. If news reporting showed RFK Jr. had been an actual candidate, the Time article would say was considered. -- M.boli (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

My point is, it's encyclopedic based on WP:WEIGHT, due to the recent coverage by reliable sources. Reliable sources bring it up with some regularity and there is no reason why we should not include it. Miner Editor (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually there is ample evidence from current coverage and coverage at the time. This Politico article, published two days earlier than the one cited, mentions it: "President-elect Barack Obama is strongly considering Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Environmental Protection Agency, a Cabinet post, Democratic officials told Politico." Probably by the time the article currently cited (which you link to) was released, it was well understood that Kennedy was being considered. Hence the odd wording you're objecting to. Feel free to update the citation in that section if you like, but it did indeed happen. He was indeed considered as head of the EPA. --SkotyWA^T_C 19:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So at the time of the election people are saying Obama is strongly considering. I guess there is ambiguity in the word considering. I still have seen no evidence that RFK Jr. got beyond the stage of his name was bruited about. -- M.boli (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Now you're being deliberately imprecise. If you read the whole first sentence of the source I provided the "people" who were saying this to Politico were Democratic party officials. Not just randos, but people who actually would have participated in the vetting of candidates for the job. --SkotyWA^T_C 13:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said, this plays off ambiguity in the word considering. That article still doesn't get past the name-was-bruited-about stage. It says RFK Jr.s name was "strongly" bruited about in Obama's circles.

Nevertheless, I don't see any point in arguing this further. I think including this in the Wikipedia article is a kind of puffery. But it is small, and the current well-hedged wording isn't inaccurate. -- M.boli (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree it is significant to RFK Jr, even though not significant to Obama, because when Obama was elected president, he had far greater notability than RFK Jr. and still does btw. TFD (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Relocate RFK Jr. considered for EPA administrator from the lede into body of article. Right now the lede contains the more full treatment:

• There was discussion in the press that the first Obama administration was possibly considering him as a candidate for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, but his controversial statements and arrest for heroin possession in the 1980s made him unlikely to receive Senate confirmation.

Later in the article, in the political endorsements section, there is a briefer treatment:

• After the election, he was named as a front-runner for Obama's EPA administrator.

The lede is supposed to summarize material selected from the article. Instead in this case a single sentence in the lede contains the entire treatment. I suggest moving this clearly brief and unimportant event out of the lede, add it into the political endorsements part. -- M.boli (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Chatter about a job he might potentially have been in the running for is hardly lede-worthy. XOR'easter (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

False claims about Ukraine

Shouldn't this article point out how many of RFK Jr's claims about Ukraine are simply false? For example, he asserts that there were 14,000 civilians killed in Donbas prior to the Russian invasion, which is simply a flat-out lie.[16] RFK Jr compounds that lie by claiming the deaths were all Russian civilians. He also persistently and falsely claims that Aegis missile batteries in Europe contain Tomahawk nuclear missiles (which haven't even existed for the last 10 years).[17] — Red XIV ^(talk) 05:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Instead of looking for obscure sources for anti-RFK Jr material, the article should summarize what is covered in the body of reliable sources.

Your first source is an analysis by a former member of Russia's opposition in a Voice of America site. The other is Techarp, a Malaysian website with fewer than 10 employees covering IT. Without getting into whether or not either is a reliable source, coverage in these two publications fails to establish weight for inclusion.

Furthermore, per policy, analysis in rs is not itself considered reliable, unless written by an expert.

You should not accuse living persons of lying, which is a violation of BLP policy. Sometimes people are just mistaken. Also, your source does not say RFK Jr claimed the U.S. supplied Ukraine with nuclear weapons, just that they provided missiles that could carry them (which your source says they are no longer able to).

My advice is to remain patient and see if RFK Jr's credibility on Ukraine becomes an issue, as earlier his views on vaccines have. TFD (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Have re-removed the "civilian" part of that edit as the 14,000 figure is for all casualties. Cannolis (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign might benefit from some attention

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign might benefit from some attention. The lede said nothing about conspiracy-mongering, misinformation, and Children's Health Defense, merely mentioning "anti-vaccine activist". The article kind of downplays or buries much of his history. I added one sentence, with two references, to the lede, showing misinformation and conspiracy theories are a main part of his campaign. -- M.boli (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Update: 14 minutes later an editor removed the content. I opened a discussion. -- M.boli (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You are way out of line at accusing me of being a "fan". I am seeing a "piling on" going on regarding this individual and I am enforcing the balance our encyclopedia requires by policy. Miner Editor (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please fix the books listed in "Selected works"

I have User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js installed on my common.js page and every single one of the works listed (which are all cite book templates) is throwing those orange Harvard warnings - Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named.... I know there's a reason but can't remember the why at the moment so could someone - please - fix whatever is wrong? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I put |ref=none on all the {{cite book}} templates in that section of the text. I guess the template auto-generates an anchor so in-text citations can link to the book. But this is a simple list books, not references at the bottom with links pointing to them. -- M.boli (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Covid ethnically targeted to spare Jews and Chinese

RFK Jr. says COVID was ‘ethnically targeted’ to spare Jews. Yes, yes, WP:NYPOST, but for a change, this is not editorializing or sensationalizing. Plain 1:47 video at the link. This only dropped barely 90 mins ago, so other sources will likely pick it up throughout the day. Zaathras (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Sodding hell. Only sources with "no consensus for reliability" or worse (NYPOST, Daily Beast & National Review) seem to have picked it up so far but as you say, it'll be covered by the others soon no doubt. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Haaretz good enough? [18] AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Better wait 30 min. to see how mainstream U.S. media cover it. Wider coverage would indicate weight. TFD (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Both Daily Beast and National Review are good enough per WP:RSP. Just attribute them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, that whole trash conspiracy makes me feel ill. Anyways, we've also got The Jerusalem Post now too. Silverseren^C 16:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, I would wait for major mainstream media. If they can wait to make sure they have the story accurate, so can we. National Review and the New York Post don't have that problem.Why does anyone read them anyway? TFD (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We have WP:NODEADLINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

We've got The Times of Israel now too. Silverseren^C 17:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd say given this is now a political candidate's BLP, the best source we have atm is Politico (also deemed reliable at WP:RSP). But I'm inclined to agree with TFD and Muboshgu that we can wait for now. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

If it's not reported in the New York Times, CNN and MSNBC, it didn't happen. TFD (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

A lot more coming in now.

• Rolling Stone
• Vanity Fair
• NBC News
• New York Magazine

Since they are also reporting on his response to the video being revealed, you can show his statement as well. I see no reason not to include all of this in two sentences or so in the appropriate section. Silverseren^C 18:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Definitely enough RS for mention now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, yes. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to make sure there's broader information and context about his unfounded claims about origins of many diseases. See Rolling Stone: "During the discussion, Kennedy made several unfounded claims regarding the origins of infectious diseases and their relationships to vaccines. At one point, he baselessly asserted that vaccine research had been responsible for the creation of some of the deadliest diseases in human history, including HIV, the Spanish flu, and Lyme disease. " ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is regarded as generally unreliable for politics post 2011 by community consensus at WP:RSP, and I can't find any source for these claims outside of that, the unreliable Raw Story, and the Daily Beast for which there's no consensus on reliability, so we may be as well waiting until a reliable source picks up on it. Though in the meantime, there's something to be said for expanding it based on articles like this. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ser, "no consensus" does not mean we can't use it, so Daily Beast is okay, and Rolling Stone is too because this isn't politics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This absolutely involves politics and I am astounded that you could assert that it does not. It's actually in their "Politics" section for Pete's sake.Miner Editor (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I am familiar with what "no consensus" means and did not say we couldn't use the Daily Beast in my post. On the latter point, I would've understood this as politics given it pertains to someone currently running for political office. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 01:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I just see this as primarily a fringe/medical/COVID matter. That a politician is involved is a secondary matter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is activist and cannot be considered a reliable source for such an incendiary and culturally divisive individual and subject. They have a long history of shady editorial practices and falsifications done with intend to persuade. Miner Editor (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Taibbi is no longer at Rolling Stone, so that is no longer a major problem. RS can be biased, and when their bias is toward mainstream POV and science, then that bias is good. That should indicate they are even more appropriate for us to use. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stone has subject matter experts who write excellent content. Regardless, we should judge usage on a case-by-case basis, so is there any evidence they are bad in this situation? That they are siding with the mainstream and scientific POV makes them more reliable, not less. We are a mainstream encyclopedia, and any source (or editor) that deviates from that is not a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

They have a well-documented history of falsification when it suits their agenda, our article outlines them nicely, and a quick google of "Rolling stone integrity" might open your eyes. There are better sources. Peace out. Miner Editor (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this back and forth is helpful. Instead let's concentrate on WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. It's hard to argue this isn't a matter of politics. It's also hard to dispute it's also effectively a "medical or scientific claim". Valjean seems to have acknowledged it's a medical claim related above. For something as well covered as this on such a prominent personality, there's zero reason to try to argue that this is a very rare case when Rolling Stones is reliable on a matter of politics and science or medicine. Therefore Rolling Stones is out as a source per unanimous consensus. If Valjean feels that staff changes at Rolling Stones means it's now more reliable for politics and science or medicine again, they're welcome to start a discussion at WP:RSN although I'd strongly suggest they check recent discussions first and ensure their argument hasn't already been made and rejected. But until that happens, let's just stop wasting time here on a source already roundly rejected by the community for coverage on matters like this. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. For the politics issue, if it helps, let's assume this was 2022 and the Fox News consensus was only about politics and not science. Would you be willing to accept the argument, well this is only vague about politics so the consensus not to use Fox News for politics is irrelevant. If you wouldn't accept that argument, then don't accept it here either. If you would really accept the use of Fox News then, how about if it said something you felt was wrong and maybe about something Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders had said on something science related? Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Nil Einne, your reasoning is totally compelling, and I won't mention this anymore. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Thanks for the reality check. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

CNN have now covered it, so I've added it to the relevant COVID-19 section. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 00:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

As has The Washington Post. Silverseren^C 00:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

And NBC News: "RFK Jr. pushes back on report he said Covid-19 was ethnically targeted to spare Jews" Notice how these news sources include reaction to the comments as well as RFK Jr's response. There is no deadline and it was worth waiting for good sources before adding information. TFD (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:MANDY. Zaathras (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Bingo. Zaathras, this is a very deceptive and common, if not universal, tactic used by anti-vaxxers. What they say cannot be trusted, including their denials. They claim they are for vaccine safety, but the thrust of all they do is to exaggerate rare risks, lie about the risk/benefit profile of vaccines, undermine trust in experts and scientists, and effectively turn people against using vaccines at all. Their "hesitation" is applied where it is not needed and causes easily preventable injury and death, mostly of children. Hell has a special corner for these people. Jesus said something about hanging a millstone around the necks of people who harm children and throwing them into the sea. Not a bad idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, professional ethics require journalists to ask people to respond to criticisms against them. TFD (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say MANDY especially applies when the denial is just that, a denial that the thing happened and nothing else or any extenuating evidence being presented. Somewhat worse even in this case when the denial in the face of video evidence is "I didn't say that", when the video in question clearly shows the person did say that. Silverseren^C 15:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It's just an essay and there is Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply, which contradicts it. In fact, In this case, NPOV policy applies, which requires coverage in the article if it's covered prominently in the media.

Unlike Astor, the range of replies RFK Jr. could have made were not binary. He could have said for example that the clip was faked or unfairly edited. Or he might have said that the virus had been deliberately engineered to target and exclude specific ethnicities. TFD (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times writeup [19] has this to say about RFK's response: Mr. Kennedy responded to The New York Post story with a defense that only deepened his conspiratorial theories. He wrote on Twitter that he "accurately pointed out" that the United States is "developing ethnically targeted bioweapons" — a point he made in his remarks captured on video, when he repeated Russian propaganda that the United States is collecting D.N.A. in Ukraine to target Russians with tailored bioweapons. Mr. Kennedy also linked to a scientific paper that he said showed the structure of the Covid-19 virus made Black and Caucasian people more susceptible, and "ethnic Chinese, Finns and Ashkenazi Jews" were less receptive. But the study he linked to, in July 2020, early in the pandemic and before effective treatments had emerged, made no reference to Chinese people as more receptive to the virus, nor did it speak of targeting the virus. It said one particular receptor for the virus appeared not to be present in Amish and Ashkenazi Jews. His conclusions were roundly dismissed by scientists. "Jewish or Chinese protease consensus sequences are not a thing in biochemistry, but they are in racism and antisemitism," said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and the Washington Post isn't exactly buying the denial. Kennedy added in his tweet that he “never implied that the ethnic effect was deliberately engineered,” though at the dinner, he floated that possibility directly, according to the video. [20] XOR'easter (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Candidates in the 2024 United States presidential election

I could imagine we mention in the first sentence that this person is a candidate to be nominated by the Democratic Party? MariaMMIV (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ya think? (Gibbs logic - at least in the lead paragraph). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. My rearrangement of the lead (see next section) does this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Rearrangement of lead

No content was lost. We should not cover the same topic in two different places in the lead, so I reworked the lead. I moved the last paragraph of the lead up and combined it with existing content in the first sentence. I made all of that the second paragraph. Now the first paragraph is totally uncontroversial, while we do not bury the topics for which he is best known.

I hope this change will make all the objections above a moot issue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the last edit is a bit premature as the still ongoing RFC above is specifically about the first sentence and controversial terms. Cannolis (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

But doesn't it resolve several of the complaints? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Making the first paragraph "totally uncontroversial" merely for the sake of being uncontroversial isn't warranted, IMO. Absent a consensus about what complaints actually need to be resolved, that's not a kind of edit that we should do. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

XOR'easter, I can assure you that the fact my first sentence was "totally uncontroversial" was not an attempt to bury or hide the controversial stuff. On the contrary. My version made it more prominent. Literally use your eyes to LOOK at it! My version made the vaccine stuff very prominent, more so than the current version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

In the RfC above, one !vote says that the mentions of "propaganda" and "conspiracy theories" definitely belong in the first sentence. Another says It is appropriate to have these words at the very start of the lead. Another says I support the inclusion of conspiracy theory (even if in the first sentence) while narrowly coming down against the term "propaganda". A reply in a discussion chain says, And like his environmental work, his antivaccine work should be represented in the first sentence. The question of what belongs at the very top of the article is very much a part of the as-yet-unclosed RfC. XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Replaced "debunked" with "questionable" (the source used for 'debunked' was February, 2021, awhile back in covid-years) and was reverted. "Questionable" seems the better choice of the two. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Blaming Hank Aaron's death on a COVID vaccine has not become less debunked over time. There might be a better word, but "questionable" seems too weak an adjective. XOR'easter (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Did Kennedy blame Aaron's death on the vaccine or just questioned if it could be connected. Exact language "Hank Aaron’s tragic death is part of a wave of suspicious deaths among elderly closely following administration of COVID vaccines." Being banned for saying anything the least bit questionable about the vaccines in February 2021 would get anyone removed off most of that era's social media. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a pretty obvious dogwhistle (just suggesting... just asking questions... gosh, it's awfully suspicious) which the BBC straightforwardly described as linking Aaron's death to the vaccine. The Agence France-Presse fact-checkers use linking as well, and also mention RFK saying that the flu shot is more deadly than COVID [21]. NPR mentions the Aaron incident alongside his having shared baseless conspiracy theories linking 5G cellular networks to the coronavirus [22]. All in all, it's an evident instance of "just asking questions" conspiracy-mongering that reputable secondary sources saw right through, and it is only one example they give of claims that have grown no more plausible over time. XOR'easter (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Just one more and I'll move on. Of course he was just asking the question, Kennedy had no way of knowing if Hank Aaron died from the vaccine and wouldn't have claimed that he did. He was questioning. I assume Kennedy was aware of the daily current stats and saw a pattern in them that he questioned, and Aaron fell into that subset. It's a leap to go from that to directly implying 'Kennedy was making a direct accusation with certainty', which is where it stands on the page now. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I see that my rearrangement has been reverted, so now the vaccine stuff is buried again. Being in the first sentence does not mean "more noticeable". In this instance, my version made it more noticeable. Now it's buried again. That's unfortunate.

It also means we are dealing with the same topic in two different places in the lead, and that's not right. My version collected it in a very noticeable second paragraph. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure which version makes it more noticeable; I tend to think the current version does, but I could well believe that varies among readers. On purely procedural grounds, though, we shouldn't change a feature of the introduction that the RfC is explicitly disputing until the RfC is done. XOR'easter (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand your second point, although no rule forbids someone daring to cut to the chase by installing what will be seen by most of the complainers as improvements. That's what we do with AfDs too. When there are many complaints about some particular matter, it's okay to move the article closer to a consensus version that will be accepted.

Note that my rearrangement did not change the wording under discussion. It just moved it to a more noticeable place. Now it's buried again.

My version also fixed another matter that was not under discussion, and that can still be fixed while the RfC is ongoing. We currently use the first sentence and last paragraph on the same topics. That's totally wrong. I collected it all in the second sentence, right where it was noticeable. Right now the vaccine stuff is buried in the first sentence where it will only be noticed by those who read the whole sentence. Then it is also covered in more depth in the last paragraph. That's not right.

In case you're in doubt about my pro-vaccine creds (I'm a mainstream PA and PT), I believe that content should be very prominent, more so than now. (My version did that.) Definitely not in the last paragraph as anti-vax editors would like. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

The placement of the content in question in the first sentence has indeed been part of what the RfC has been disputing. Multiple !voters said explicitly that it belongs there; even if a different placement would be more prominent, we can't rush ahead and make that change. Assuming that the RfC will be closed soon (it's been a month as of today), that will become a moot point, of course. As to the matter of repetition within the intro, I can see how it might be suboptimal, but I'm not convinced it's either horribly wrong or terribly unusual. For example, the lede of Albert Einstein mentions relativity in the second sentence, then goes into more detail in the next paragraph. XOR'easter (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, assuming we follow the example at Albert Einstein, we could just move the last paragraph up so it's the second paragraph. That's exactly what you describe, and it's not part of the RfC. So go ahead and do that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Possibly useful

Robert Kennedy Jr’s racist, antisemitic and xenophobic views go back decades, report says (Guardian). Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There are several recent articles in Science-Based Medicine focused on RFK Jr, too. This one talks about the bioweapon comments. VintageVernacular (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)