This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
Frequently asked questions Q: Why does the article state Kennedy "is known for advocating anti-vaccine misinformation"?
A: There is a
consensus that numerous
reliable sources describe Kennedy as promoting anti-vaccine misinformation. This wording is the result of a
2023 RfC. Q: Why does article state that Kennedy advocates "public health–related conspiracy theories"?
A: Consensus is that multiple,
independent, reliable sources describe Kennedy as an advocate and/or promoter of conspiracy theories. This wording is the result of a
2023 RfC. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some editors have cited a 2023 RFC that concluded: 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.
to state that a definite determination has been made on whether activist who promotes
anti-vaccine misinformation
belongs in the first sentence. This is inaccurate.
Rather, the RFC concluded that the (accurate and well-sourced) statement that including anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories
belongs in the lead of the page. Those are two different things. Ending it at the first paragraph inaccurately implies that the other conspiracy theories he has promoted are at least plausible. (Which they're not.) It's also stylistically awkward and attempts to summarize his entire career (even pre-2005) as simply being conspiracy theories. (Which is also incorrect.)
Kennedy Jr.'s page and persona is remarkably similar to that of Naomi Wolf, who started off as a mainstream feminist writer until the 2010s, in which she started to promote conspiracy theories (including surrounding COVID-19) and other insane assertions. Her page's first sentence lists her as a conspiracy theorist (correctly) and then leaves it at that before listing the theories that she has promoted in its third and fourth paragraph. The same case should apply here.
As multiple seasoned editors have objected to the change (including TFD, me, and others). I made a comprehensive improvement to the article that changed his description to "conspiracy theorist" and expanded what conspiracy theories he has promoted since 2005. This seems much more reasonable to me. For individuals who originally became famous/well-known/respected for one thing, and then go, to put it nicely, "crazy", the WP: PRECEDENT seems clear. KlayCax ( talk) 02:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Naomi Rebekah Wolf (born 1962) is an American feminist author, journalist, and conspiracy theorist who for posting misinformation on topics such as beheadings carried out by ISIS, the Western African Ebola virus epidemic, and Edward Snowden. It's clearly a form of editorialization intended to "prime" readers. KlayCax ( talk) 11:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Avoid cluttering the first sentence. The current phrasing is stylistically awkward and editorializing. (e.g. It comes across as "this is a very bad guy!") It's also purely reductant. There's no need to state a claim three times in the lead. It's insulting to the intelligence of readers.
Anti-vaccine propaganda is, at the present time, RFK Jr's primary claim to notability. Here is a survey of main news sources from April last year, when RFK Jr. announced he will run for president. Most commonly these these reports put the anti-vax stuff in the lede sendence. The reliable sources were pretty consistent with ID-ing him as an anti-vaxer.
Anti-vaccine activist RFK Jr. launches presidential campaignApril 19.
Anti-vaccine activist RFK Jr. challenging Biden in 2024April 5.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the anti-vaccine activist and environmental lawyer, described himself as a truth-teller who will “end the division” as he launched ...April 19.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Soon to Announce White House Run, Sows Doubts About VaccinesApril 17.
Robert Kennedy Jr., a Noted Vaccine Skeptic, Files to Run for PresidentApril 5.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Makes His White House Run Official. Announcing his long-shot bid to challenge President Biden, he spoke to a crowd of people who voiced their shared skepticism about vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry.April 19.
ABC News edits RFK Jr. interview to exclude 'false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines'April 28
In addition to the reliable sources, the sheer weight of RFK Jr.s work product is hard to ignore. The past five books. Movies. Law suits. The guy is a veritable gusher of anti-vax and conspiracy theory bushwa. And not surprisingly this is what the reliable sources tell us. -- M.boli ( talk) 05:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lead say, (a) RFK Jr. is a conspiracy theorist, (b) RFK Jr. promotes conspiracy theories, or (c) avoid both terms in describing his views.
TFD (
talk) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Can we get some sort of examples here this is kind of meaningless. Moxy🍁 02:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. ... is an American politician ... and conspiracy theorist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation.
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 17:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. ... is an American politician ... and activist who promotes conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine misinformation.
User:Unknown-Tree, sorry if I wasn't clear. The reason reliable sources use the expression "person with a disability" rather than "disabled person" is to avoid dehumanizing them. Calling someone an environmental lawyer is not dismissive or judgmental. Other examples of respectful language are "undocumented immigrant" instead of "illegal immigrant," "person of color" instead of "colored person." While many people see this as politically correct nonsense, it's how language is used in reliable sources today. TFD ( talk) 10:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but this appears to be a malformed RFC. Does anyone dispute that he's a conspiracy theorist? I'm assuming this has to do with the first sentence? Or no? KlayCax ( talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I've thrown in my vote but even though the activist part isn't dealt with in the RfC, "anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist" would be much better than "conspiracy theorist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation" in my eyes. Even if an activist isn't dealing in the truth they're still an activist, and we deal with the fact it's misinformation in the third paragraph. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 20:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, the "Abortion" section under the "Political Views" tab could be updated to better reflect the latest information.
Current: In 2023, Kennedy said on camera to NBC reporter Ali Vitali that, if elected, he would sign a federal ban on abortions performed after 15 weeks or 21 weeks of pregnancy. He went on to say, "I think the states have a right to protect a child once the child becomes viable, and that right, it increases." His campaign quickly released a statement saying, "Today, Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question posed to him by a NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair....Mr. Kennedy's position on abortion is that it is always the woman's right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion."[188]
Updated: As a candidate for 2024 U.S. President, Kennedy has shared his firm support for bodily autonomy and the judicial principles established in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, arguing abortion should be a legal option for women to best determine for themselves on an individual basis as opposed to government regulation. He has stated a key part of his position is his view that abortion cannot be considered in isolation from support for mothers and families, citing universal free childcare and other economic relief policies as ways to create more hospitable conditions for young families and to reduce the rate of individual abortions. [1] [2]
In 2023, Kennedy said on camera to NBC reporter Ali Vitali that, if elected, he would sign a federal ban on abortions performed after 21 weeks of pregnancy. He added, "I think the states have a right to protect a child once the child becomes viable, and that right, it increases." His campaign quickly released a statement saying, "Today, Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question posed to him by an NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair ... Mr. Kennedy's position on abortion is that it is always the woman's right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion."[188] JLuzPaz ( talk) 16:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 16:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
firm support for bodily autonomysounds like it could have come from his campaign page, and it seems that yes you are citing his campaign website for the change. – Muboshgu ( talk) 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What should the first sentence say about Kennedy Jr.?
conspiracy theories surrounding members of the Kennedy family, anti-vaccine misinformation, and other public health conspiracy theoriesshould be stated twice. Once in the leading sentence. The other in the last paragraph of the lead.)
"Who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories".should be stated twice. One time in the first sentence. The other in the last paragraph of the lead.)
Started due to long-term editing dispute without consensus. Interested to see everyone's thoughts. Thanks! :) KlayCax ( talk) 02:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
an American politician and conspiracy theorist.(By now, other than being a Kennedy, he is known for two things). The first sentence of the lead should be no more complex than necessary. Further details are summarized later in the lede. (perhaps one more identifying phrase might be added to the leading sentence, but no more. — Neonorange ( talk to Phil) (he, they) 05:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) —
is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist. It covers most of the main claims to notability. It is reasonably succinct. I think adding a clause about promoting misinformation would enhance it. Diluting conspiracy theorist with a misleading qualifier about Kennedy family is simply wrong. The person who started this misbegotten RfC lets us know the reason earlier: the lede "comes accross as 'this is a very bad guy'". I don't see why that would be a problem. -- M.boli ( talk) 22:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This statement: "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist. " states two opinions, that cannot be corroborated (because they are opinions): 1) anti-vaccine activist is erroneous, and ill-formed: RFK is not, nor has he ever been, against vaccines, per se. He is for vaccine transparency. That is all. Please provide citation that states RFK is against vaccines. Should be changed to "advocate for vaccine transparency" 2) conspiracy theorist - unproveable, hence erroneous. You provide "citations" from two works, that in themselves are opinions. In order to claim that someone is an conspiracy theorist, you must first delineate something as a theory - in fact, Kennedy has always cited medial references, amply, in his books and discussions, that point to verifiable evidence for his claims. There is no "theory", only evidence.
In general, the use of such social buzzwords - used to label people for political purposes, rather than for the education of people, should be discouraged, or banned, from Wikipedia.
The fact that this article is uneditable is also suspect, in a Presidential campaign cycle. 204.144.213.38 ( talk) 16:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I believe in the other party section of the infobox We the People Party should be added and it would redirect to his campaign page. This is because he has founded this party for ballot access in many states, perhaps something to that tune can be added as a footnote to it. There is a campaign video he posted titled "I‘m creating a new political party" that explains this Colin.1678 ( talk) 13:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change anti vaxx to "anti FORCED vaccinations without proof of benefit or effectiveness"
Remove conspiracy theorist because his ideas are being proven in court. 2603:8001:8600:7732:9830:FF88:ABB1:2AF1 ( talk) 16:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
commie, you fail to understand NPOV. At Wikipedia, "neutral" has a special meaning, not the typical meaning. It does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases.
"Neutral" in NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the common sense of the word. It does not mean without bias from sources, only without bias from editors. NPOV does not require that sources or content be without bias or be neutral.
Editors should remain neutral by not removing the bias found in RS. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so, and that is a very proper bias. Anything else would be dishonest. Wikipedia does not support dishonesty or whitewash it.
Editors are "neutral" when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not "move" or "balance" content to the center to keep an article "neutral". That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content.
I suggest you also read WP:Dead horse, WP:IDHT, and WP:Disruptive. Yes, your continued insistance, in the face of massive opposition from many very experienced editors, is disruptive and not helpful. It's time to back away. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
Frequently asked questions Q: Why does the article state Kennedy "is known for advocating anti-vaccine misinformation"?
A: There is a
consensus that numerous
reliable sources describe Kennedy as promoting anti-vaccine misinformation. This wording is the result of a
2023 RfC. Q: Why does article state that Kennedy advocates "public health–related conspiracy theories"?
A: Consensus is that multiple,
independent, reliable sources describe Kennedy as an advocate and/or promoter of conspiracy theories. This wording is the result of a
2023 RfC. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some editors have cited a 2023 RFC that concluded: 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.
to state that a definite determination has been made on whether activist who promotes
anti-vaccine misinformation
belongs in the first sentence. This is inaccurate.
Rather, the RFC concluded that the (accurate and well-sourced) statement that including anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories
belongs in the lead of the page. Those are two different things. Ending it at the first paragraph inaccurately implies that the other conspiracy theories he has promoted are at least plausible. (Which they're not.) It's also stylistically awkward and attempts to summarize his entire career (even pre-2005) as simply being conspiracy theories. (Which is also incorrect.)
Kennedy Jr.'s page and persona is remarkably similar to that of Naomi Wolf, who started off as a mainstream feminist writer until the 2010s, in which she started to promote conspiracy theories (including surrounding COVID-19) and other insane assertions. Her page's first sentence lists her as a conspiracy theorist (correctly) and then leaves it at that before listing the theories that she has promoted in its third and fourth paragraph. The same case should apply here.
As multiple seasoned editors have objected to the change (including TFD, me, and others). I made a comprehensive improvement to the article that changed his description to "conspiracy theorist" and expanded what conspiracy theories he has promoted since 2005. This seems much more reasonable to me. For individuals who originally became famous/well-known/respected for one thing, and then go, to put it nicely, "crazy", the WP: PRECEDENT seems clear. KlayCax ( talk) 02:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Naomi Rebekah Wolf (born 1962) is an American feminist author, journalist, and conspiracy theorist who for posting misinformation on topics such as beheadings carried out by ISIS, the Western African Ebola virus epidemic, and Edward Snowden. It's clearly a form of editorialization intended to "prime" readers. KlayCax ( talk) 11:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Avoid cluttering the first sentence. The current phrasing is stylistically awkward and editorializing. (e.g. It comes across as "this is a very bad guy!") It's also purely reductant. There's no need to state a claim three times in the lead. It's insulting to the intelligence of readers.
Anti-vaccine propaganda is, at the present time, RFK Jr's primary claim to notability. Here is a survey of main news sources from April last year, when RFK Jr. announced he will run for president. Most commonly these these reports put the anti-vax stuff in the lede sendence. The reliable sources were pretty consistent with ID-ing him as an anti-vaxer.
Anti-vaccine activist RFK Jr. launches presidential campaignApril 19.
Anti-vaccine activist RFK Jr. challenging Biden in 2024April 5.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the anti-vaccine activist and environmental lawyer, described himself as a truth-teller who will “end the division” as he launched ...April 19.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Soon to Announce White House Run, Sows Doubts About VaccinesApril 17.
Robert Kennedy Jr., a Noted Vaccine Skeptic, Files to Run for PresidentApril 5.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Makes His White House Run Official. Announcing his long-shot bid to challenge President Biden, he spoke to a crowd of people who voiced their shared skepticism about vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry.April 19.
ABC News edits RFK Jr. interview to exclude 'false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines'April 28
In addition to the reliable sources, the sheer weight of RFK Jr.s work product is hard to ignore. The past five books. Movies. Law suits. The guy is a veritable gusher of anti-vax and conspiracy theory bushwa. And not surprisingly this is what the reliable sources tell us. -- M.boli ( talk) 05:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lead say, (a) RFK Jr. is a conspiracy theorist, (b) RFK Jr. promotes conspiracy theories, or (c) avoid both terms in describing his views.
TFD (
talk) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Can we get some sort of examples here this is kind of meaningless. Moxy🍁 02:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. ... is an American politician ... and conspiracy theorist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation.
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 17:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. ... is an American politician ... and activist who promotes conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine misinformation.
User:Unknown-Tree, sorry if I wasn't clear. The reason reliable sources use the expression "person with a disability" rather than "disabled person" is to avoid dehumanizing them. Calling someone an environmental lawyer is not dismissive or judgmental. Other examples of respectful language are "undocumented immigrant" instead of "illegal immigrant," "person of color" instead of "colored person." While many people see this as politically correct nonsense, it's how language is used in reliable sources today. TFD ( talk) 10:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but this appears to be a malformed RFC. Does anyone dispute that he's a conspiracy theorist? I'm assuming this has to do with the first sentence? Or no? KlayCax ( talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I've thrown in my vote but even though the activist part isn't dealt with in the RfC, "anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist" would be much better than "conspiracy theorist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation" in my eyes. Even if an activist isn't dealing in the truth they're still an activist, and we deal with the fact it's misinformation in the third paragraph. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 20:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, the "Abortion" section under the "Political Views" tab could be updated to better reflect the latest information.
Current: In 2023, Kennedy said on camera to NBC reporter Ali Vitali that, if elected, he would sign a federal ban on abortions performed after 15 weeks or 21 weeks of pregnancy. He went on to say, "I think the states have a right to protect a child once the child becomes viable, and that right, it increases." His campaign quickly released a statement saying, "Today, Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question posed to him by a NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair....Mr. Kennedy's position on abortion is that it is always the woman's right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion."[188]
Updated: As a candidate for 2024 U.S. President, Kennedy has shared his firm support for bodily autonomy and the judicial principles established in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, arguing abortion should be a legal option for women to best determine for themselves on an individual basis as opposed to government regulation. He has stated a key part of his position is his view that abortion cannot be considered in isolation from support for mothers and families, citing universal free childcare and other economic relief policies as ways to create more hospitable conditions for young families and to reduce the rate of individual abortions. [1] [2]
In 2023, Kennedy said on camera to NBC reporter Ali Vitali that, if elected, he would sign a federal ban on abortions performed after 21 weeks of pregnancy. He added, "I think the states have a right to protect a child once the child becomes viable, and that right, it increases." His campaign quickly released a statement saying, "Today, Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question posed to him by an NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair ... Mr. Kennedy's position on abortion is that it is always the woman's right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion."[188] JLuzPaz ( talk) 16:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 16:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
firm support for bodily autonomysounds like it could have come from his campaign page, and it seems that yes you are citing his campaign website for the change. – Muboshgu ( talk) 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What should the first sentence say about Kennedy Jr.?
conspiracy theories surrounding members of the Kennedy family, anti-vaccine misinformation, and other public health conspiracy theoriesshould be stated twice. Once in the leading sentence. The other in the last paragraph of the lead.)
"Who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories".should be stated twice. One time in the first sentence. The other in the last paragraph of the lead.)
Started due to long-term editing dispute without consensus. Interested to see everyone's thoughts. Thanks! :) KlayCax ( talk) 02:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
an American politician and conspiracy theorist.(By now, other than being a Kennedy, he is known for two things). The first sentence of the lead should be no more complex than necessary. Further details are summarized later in the lede. (perhaps one more identifying phrase might be added to the leading sentence, but no more. — Neonorange ( talk to Phil) (he, they) 05:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) —
is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist. It covers most of the main claims to notability. It is reasonably succinct. I think adding a clause about promoting misinformation would enhance it. Diluting conspiracy theorist with a misleading qualifier about Kennedy family is simply wrong. The person who started this misbegotten RfC lets us know the reason earlier: the lede "comes accross as 'this is a very bad guy'". I don't see why that would be a problem. -- M.boli ( talk) 22:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This statement: "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist. " states two opinions, that cannot be corroborated (because they are opinions): 1) anti-vaccine activist is erroneous, and ill-formed: RFK is not, nor has he ever been, against vaccines, per se. He is for vaccine transparency. That is all. Please provide citation that states RFK is against vaccines. Should be changed to "advocate for vaccine transparency" 2) conspiracy theorist - unproveable, hence erroneous. You provide "citations" from two works, that in themselves are opinions. In order to claim that someone is an conspiracy theorist, you must first delineate something as a theory - in fact, Kennedy has always cited medial references, amply, in his books and discussions, that point to verifiable evidence for his claims. There is no "theory", only evidence.
In general, the use of such social buzzwords - used to label people for political purposes, rather than for the education of people, should be discouraged, or banned, from Wikipedia.
The fact that this article is uneditable is also suspect, in a Presidential campaign cycle. 204.144.213.38 ( talk) 16:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I believe in the other party section of the infobox We the People Party should be added and it would redirect to his campaign page. This is because he has founded this party for ballot access in many states, perhaps something to that tune can be added as a footnote to it. There is a campaign video he posted titled "I‘m creating a new political party" that explains this Colin.1678 ( talk) 13:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change anti vaxx to "anti FORCED vaccinations without proof of benefit or effectiveness"
Remove conspiracy theorist because his ideas are being proven in court. 2603:8001:8600:7732:9830:FF88:ABB1:2AF1 ( talk) 16:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
commie, you fail to understand NPOV. At Wikipedia, "neutral" has a special meaning, not the typical meaning. It does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases.
"Neutral" in NPOV does not mean "neutral" in the common sense of the word. It does not mean without bias from sources, only without bias from editors. NPOV does not require that sources or content be without bias or be neutral.
Editors should remain neutral by not removing the bias found in RS. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so, and that is a very proper bias. Anything else would be dishonest. Wikipedia does not support dishonesty or whitewash it.
Editors are "neutral" when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not "move" or "balance" content to the center to keep an article "neutral". That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content.
I suggest you also read WP:Dead horse, WP:IDHT, and WP:Disruptive. Yes, your continued insistance, in the face of massive opposition from many very experienced editors, is disruptive and not helpful. It's time to back away. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)