Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Political party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it's very ambiguous, recommended put into "otherparty" column. Cbls1911 (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Substituting one conspiracy theory for another?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I completely agree with you.

I'm being brushed off by the same editors for trying to include relevant, credible, and important information about a case Kennedy conducted in February 2022. Despite providing multiple sources, one editor is denying my suggestion to include the information because my sources are insufficient.

I am also an attorney who works for judges doing research and analysis.

It appears that their bias is getting in the way of publishing neutral facts about an important case. Survivor200 (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Request to move information in the introduction

The introduction starts out like this: "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr is...an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist whom President-elect Donald Trump has nominated to serve as United States secretary of health and human services.[1] Kennedy is the chairman and founder of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group and proponent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation.[2]"

This is not untrue and I see that there are sources cited. I have no problem with this. However, it seems really biased to include all of this in the very first sentence of the article. After all, Wikipedia is, in fact, an encyclopedia whose purpose is to inform, not persuade. One would therefore use these sentences in the intro of an article, essay, or video explaining why it's a terrible idea for President elect Donald Trump to nominate Kennedy for US Secretary of Health and Human Services, but not in the intro of informational media. I mean, people reading this page see this before seeing that Kennedy ran for president, or that the is the nephew of JFK; facts that in an informational format should be stated first. I cannot stress this enough: these sentences should be kept in the original article but should be moved to section 5.1 or 5.2.2, whichever is more fitting. Noahjhittie (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the type of comment I wish we got on this talk page more often.

In short, the lead follows the article's body. So, every key point in the body should be in the lead too, and that includes his anti-vaccine advocacy and conspiracy theories, along with his family relations, work on the environment, and status as HHS nominee-designate. Many people don't read past the article's lead, so it should serve as a concise summary of the entire article.

We can always discuss if there are better ways to present this information than how it is currently presented. It's much nicer to discuss it with someone who isn't cursing us out when they do so. If you have any suggestions for ways to rewrite the lead, we're all ears. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

When RFK Jr. announced his run for president, many of the reliable source news articles ID-ed him as a famous anti-vax activist or conspiracy theory person in the lede paragraph, very often in the first sentence. The evidence is strong that these activities are his primary notability.

Which shouldn't be a surprise, considering that publicizing medical misinformation has been his job (as head of Children's Health Defense) for nearly two decades. It has been much of his work output. He spent the pandemic manufacturing popular anti-vax conspracy theory movies and best-seller books. Same with his political campaign. The heavy emphasis on conspiracy theories while campaigning earned the 2023 Politifict "Lie of the Year". So it absolutely "informational" that this is how news sources ID-ed him. And why it is in the Wikipedia lede sentences. This was discussed on talk pages. -- M.boli (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

While I may not agree that anti-vaccine advocacy is the primary thing RFK is and has always been known for, I'm willing to let it go and not argue further on that matter specifically. But I am more concerned with this specific part "...anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist whom President-elect Donald Trump has nominated to serve as United States secretary of health and human services." I think we need to hold ourselves to the higher standard of encyclopedic work. That is, recent events should not go in the very first sentence we read about someone; this is not the news, but an encyclopedia, . While there is absolutely no problem including recent events, they should be appended to more basic, establishing facts. Again, this information can still be presented within the introduction, just differently; again, Wikipedia articles are written to be unbiased. When I was writing my section about TCM in this article I wrote: Shanzhagao, I was corrected multiple times that I had to be unbiased and objective when what I wrote was actually pretty reasonable. I could be wrong but to me it felt that we are not holding ourselves to the same standards across the board.

TLDR: I think the introduction should be corrected to say that RFK is an anti-vaccine activist in a separate sentence than him being nominated to serve as US Secretary of Health. If nothing else, consider how the current phrasing doesn't look unbiased. Noahjhittie (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

What is the connection between separate sentences and bias? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Because it matters why and when a fact is being brought up. For example, let's say I was writing an article about Caitlyn Jenner and I wrote something like this in the intro:

"Caitlyn Jenner made millions of dollars in men's sports, had six children by three wives, and comfortably transitioned in retirement at age 65. She has told Buzzfeed in an interview that the hardest part about being a woman is figuring out what to wear in the morning. Caitlyn Jenner is the only transgender person most people have heard of (source)."

Everything I just stated was true and should be mentioned within that article. However, the tone I used and the close juxtaposition of those facts makes it pretty clear that I am making the argument that "a male privilege has shaped her perspective" or "it is sad that she is the only transgender person most people have heard of". Now, while I agree with both of those things, I am still biased by virtue of the fact that I am taking a side/making an argument, even if it's safe or nuanced one. Wikipedia is informational and has scrutinous standards as to what is bias. Therefore, even when the writer of an article doesn't explicitly state their position, it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out their position. I would like to remind us again that I am not asking for omission of anything in RJK's article. I am asking for a very simple rewording/rephrasing on the basis that the present phrasing is likely altering readers' ability to make their own conclusions about the topic we are writing about. It is especially important to avoid any potential bias considering this article is about a contentious political figure for which many opinions are held. Noahjhittie (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you want your own narrative in the lede, with an emphasis different from the one in reliable sources. You want people to draw the same conclusions you did. As usual, "bias" = "something that differs from my opinion". --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is the editor is objecting to the implicature in the highlighted part of the lede sentence:

... is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist whom President-elect Donald Trump has nominated to serve as United States secretary of health and human services.

I think it would be fine to split the first sentence into two:

... is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist. President-elect Donald Trump has nominated RFK Jr. to serve ....

The other option would be to move the nomination down one sentence:

... conspiracy theorist. Kennedy is the chairman and founder of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group and proponent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. President-elect Donald Trump has nominated ....

Either option would be fine. Kennedy's primary claims to notabilty -- including his career as an anti-vax conspiracy theorist -- would remain in the first sentence of the lede. The recent news about the nomination could be 2nd or 3rd sentence. -- M.boli (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes that would be great. M.boli, thank you very much for understanding what I was saying, I really do appreciate it. Noahjhittie (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

In February 2022, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. tried the first vaccine negligence case at the state level in United States history.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Talk:Career

• I am proposing the following based addition--written from a neutral point of view--to be made under Mr. Kennedy's "Career" section.

• Because the "Career" sections appear to be organized for the most part in chronological order by year, I suggest placing this section about Mr. Kennedy's work as a medical negligence attorney at the end after the "Cape Wind" section, as it appears to be Mr. Kennedy's most recent jury trial.

Suggested Section Name:

Medical Negligence

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

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

Kennedy, along with co-counsel, Glassman and Aaron Siri, represented the then 22-year-old autistic Plaintiff, William Yates Hazlehurst. Marty R. Phillips and Craig P. Sanders represented the Defendants, Dr. E. Carlton Hayes and The Jackson Clinic Professional Association.

The lawsuit hinged on two theories.

First, that Defendant Dr. Hayes negligently administered to the then infant Plaintiff a series of childhood vaccinations, including the MMR vaccine, whilst knowing that the infant Plaintiff had (1) an underlying mitochondrial disorder; and (2) an active ear infection, thereby leading to the development of the boy’s autism.

Second, that Defendant Dr. Hayes failed to provide the infant Plaintiff's parents with all material information about the potential interactions between the child’s underlying mitochondrial disorder, ear infection, and the recommended childhood vaccinations. This failure led to the infant Plaintiff receiving vaccinations that should have been avoided, resulting in injury—the development of autism.

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

Source #1: The Tennessee Jury Verdict Reporter - https://www.juryverdicts.net/TN7-22.pdf (The Tennessee Jury Verdict Reporter is a reliable and authentic source of legal information in the State of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee College of Law recommends it on its website: https://guides.lawlib.utk.edu/c.php?g=648011&p=4573478).

Source #2: Three Primary Sources - The Circuit Court of Madison County, Tennessee for the Twenty Sixth Judicial District at Jackson - "Order Setting New Trial and Pretrial Conference Dates," "Pretrial Conference Order," and "Order Admitting Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., ESQ. Pro Hac Vice" - https://harlequin-christin-19.tiiny.site/

Source #3: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/william-yates-hazlehurst-autism-childhood-vaccine-injury-liability/

Given that President Trump has nominated Kennedy to be the next secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and that as of December 8, 20204, President Trump is quoted as saying Kennedy will investigate supposed links between autism and childhood vaccines (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-rfk-jr-will-investigate-discredited-link-vaccines-autism-so-rcna183273), I think this addition to Kennedy's "Career" section is not only informative, but important.

Source #1 states in relevant part as follows: "Medical Negligence - The plaintiff (age 22 at trial) alleged that he developed autism after receiving childhood vaccines, including an MMR vaccine, three days shy of his first birthday – the theory alleged both informed consent and negligence by his treating pediatrician, the case turning on both the 2001 standard of care and complex causation issues – the case was tried for two and a half weeks and the doctor prevailed on liability Hazlehurst v. Hays, 19-38 Plaintiff: David C. Riley, Glassman Wyatt Tuttle & Cox, Memphis, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Hurley, NY and Aaron Siri, New York, NY Defense: Marty R. Phillips and Craig P. Sanders, Rainey Kizer Reviere & Bell, Jackson Verdict: Defense verdict on liability Court: Madison Judge: William B. Acree Date: 2-18-22 Yates Hazlehurst was born on 2-11- 00 to his parents, Rolf and Angela. His first year of life was mostly normal. He had a few illnesses but regularly treated with his Jackson, TN pediatrician, Dr. Carlton Hays of The Jackson Clinic. Yates saw Hays on 2-8-01 (just three days shy of Yates’ first birthday) for a twelve-month check-up. He also was tugging a bit on his ears and Hays diagnosed an ear infection. The doctor prescribed an antibiotic for the ear infection. He also provided the boy with a series of childhood vaccines including MMR (measles, mumps and rubella). Yates’ parents reported that within days the child had changed. Previously he was walking a bit and said “Mama,” “Dada” and “please.” his behavior regressed and he had emotional and physical problems. A few months later he was diagnosed with autism by a developmental expert. The parents suspected that Yates’ autism was related to his vaccination. They relied on proof from a treating physician and other experts and filed a federal vaccine claim. The causation theory was that the vaccine and/or a mercury-based preservative (Thimerosal) had led to the development of the boy’s autism. Moving forward as a test case, Yates’ claim was decided in February of 2009 by the Court of Federal Claims. In an opinion that ran 203 pages, the court rejected the case on causation. The plaintiffs appealed and a year later in May of 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. Yates (again through his parents) turned the litigation to state court. In a lawsuit originally filed in 2003 (03- 117), then voluntarily dismissed and refiled in 2004 (04-149) the parents presented a claim. The plaintiffs on behalf of Yates filed a case in 2010 (10- 290), later volitionally dismissed and refiled in this 2019 action, 19-38. The parents subsequently dismissed their..." Survivor200 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is incoherent. Moxy🍁 02:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

(1) What's incoherent?

Are you referring to what I wrote after "Source #1 states in relevant part as follows:"?

If so, I just copied and pasted what the first source (which I linked with a website) states.

Here is a link to the actual source which states what I copied and pasted for everyone's convenience (which turns out to have been more of an inconvenience lol): https://www.juryverdicts.net/TN7-22.pdf

(2) Let me know if you have any other questions. The subsection I am proposing to be added is important and relevant given that if confirmed, Kennedy will be our next Secretary of Health and Human Services. Survivor200 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It is only "important and relevant" if covered by reliable sources. A website that posts PDFs of jury summaries is not that. Zaathras (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I provided multiple reliable sources to substantiate my point. Let me break this down for you:

1. Primary Sources I shared three (3) primary sources—actual orders from the Court itself. These are the most direct and authoritative evidence of what transpired. You can access them here: https://harlequin-christin-19.tiiny.site/.
2. Jury Verdict Summary The PDF jury summary from The Tennessee Jury Verdict is a recognized resource in the legal field. It's not "just a random PDF"; it’s frequently cited in judicial opinions. Having worked for judges at both the state and federal levels in the United States, I’ve personally seen these verdict summaries used as reference material in drafting opinions.

Additionally, most trial-level opinions or verdicts are not included in large databases like Nexis or WestLaw, which primarily focus on appellate decisions. If you want trial-level information, you either obtain it directly from court orders (as I did) or use services like jury verdict subscriptions, which every state offers. These are widely used by lawyers and news organizations, though access typically requires a paid subscription.

1. News Articles: News articles, which you seem to favor, are actually the least reliable source for trial-level verdicts. They rely on journalists' interpretation and due diligence, which may not always align with the facts. However, for your convenience, here’s a news article detailing the case: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/william-yates-hazlehurst-autism-childhood-vaccine-injury-liability/.

To summarize:

• I’ve provided primary sources (the gold standard of reliability).
• I’ve offered context about how trial-level verdicts are accessed and used in the legal field.
• I’ve even included a news article, though it’s the least reliable source of the three.

Given this thorough explanation, is this sufficient to meet your standard of "important and relevant"? Survivor200 (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I found two (2) more primary sources - (1) the complaint that was originally filed for damages in the case; and (2) the ACTUAL judgment for defendants written by the judge in the case.

(1) Plaintiff's "Complaint for Damages": https://www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Complaint-Hazlehurst-filed-February-11-2019-1.pdf

(2) Judge William B. Acree's "Judgment for Defendants": https://www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Judgment-for-Defendants.pdf

This is more than sufficient. Survivor200 (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I’ve provided primary sources (the gold standard of reliability). Read the first sentence of WP:RSPRIMARY and get back to us. Zaathras (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I’ve reviewed the first sentence of WP:RSPRIMARY, as you suggested, and I believe it fully supports the inclusion of the court orders and related primary sources I’ve provided. Allow me to elaborate:

1. Primary Sources and Their Role on Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline explicitly states: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event and are often accounts written by people directly involved. Examples include... court records, laws, and other legal documents."

The court orders and verdict documents I provided are primary sources that meet this standard. They are authoritative, verifiable, and directly document the factual details of the trial in question. As such, they are appropriate for straightforward, descriptive statements of fact, such as those in my proposed addition.

2. Proper Use of Primary Sources in My Proposal:

The guideline emphasizes that primary sources must not be used for interpretation or original analysis, but they can be used for factual content when handled with care. My proposed addition adheres to this requirement by:

-Reporting verifiable details (trial date, participants, location, verdict, etc.) without inserting any analysis or speculative claims.

-Presenting these details in a neutral and chronological manner under the "Career" section, which is consistent with Wikipedia's editorial standards for biographical articles.

3. Supplementary Secondary Sources Provided:

While primary sources alone are sufficient for the factual details of the trial, I have also provided additional secondary sources, including a recognized jury verdict summary and a news article. This further reinforces the reliability and relevance of the proposed content.

4. Your Misinterpretation of WP:RSPRIMARY:

Your comment suggests that the first sentence of WP:RSPRIMARY disqualifies the use of primary sources, but this is not accurate. The guideline states:

"Material from primary sources should be used with caution, but not excluded outright."

The court orders and verdict documents are being used cautiously and appropriately here, exactly as the guideline prescribes. Excluding them outright, as you seem to advocate, would contradict Wikipedia policy.

5. Your Disproportionate Scrutiny and Editorial Bias:

Your dismissal of reliable primary sources (court orders) and secondary sources (jury verdict summaries and a news article) raises concerns about consistency in the application of Wikipedia’s standards. The court documents provided are not only reliable but also commonly used in legal contexts and precedents for biographical articles. Dismissing them without valid justification appears to reflect a disproportionate scrutiny that may stem from bias against the subject rather than adherence to Wikipedia’s policies.

CONCLUSION

In sum, I’ve addressed every concern raised about the sources and demonstrated how the proposal adheres to WP:RSPRIMARY and Wikipedia’s broader standards of reliability and verifiability. The court orders and related primary sources are the most authoritative evidence of the trial, and they are being used in a manner fully compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. I hope this clarifies the matter and encourages a reconsideration of your position. Survivor200 (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel that the issue regarding the sufficiency of the legal case evidence in the career section remains unresolved. Given our differing interpretations, I am requesting a third opinion to evaluate whether the cited case meets the criteria for inclusion in the article.

{{subst:Third opinion notice|Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#Career section}} ~~~~ Survivor200 (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I see no evidence it is an encyclopedia-worthy court decision. That's one reason secondary sources are important. The proffered evidence is an opinion piece in the CHD newsletter. I saw no existing Wikipedia article which covers this repeatedly failed two decade quest to link a case of autism to a vaccination. If it is notable, the disposition of this case likely belongs in that article. -- M.boli (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

So your bias is clearly showing when you state "failed two decade quest to link a case of autism to a vaccination." This case actually does just that. But as an editor, and you should know this, we aren't here to argue the merits of that theory on Kennedy's bibliographical Wikipedia case.

As such, I would like to address a few points of concern, particularly regarding neutrality and the significance of the proposed addition.

FIRST: Clarifying the Focus of My Contribution

My suggestion to include information about the February 2022 vaccine-autism trial is not an endorsement of the claim that vaccines cause autism. Instead, it highlights the historical importance of the case as the first state-level vaccine injury case tried in U.S. history. This is a neutral and factual observation that is independent of the case's merits or outcome. Ignoring the case’s significance based on its controversial subject matter risks editorial bias.

SECOND: Your Stance on "Notability" and "Secondary Sources"

You claim that there is "no evidence it is an encyclopedia-worthy court decision" and that secondary sources are insufficient. Yet, the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is not whether we personally find a subject significant but whether reliable sources document its importance. Multiple sources have discussed this case as groundbreaking, which establishes its notability.

THIRD: Bias in Your Comments

While I respect your commitment to Wikipedia’s principles, your responses suggest a dismissive attitude toward this topic. For example, you referred to the effort to link autism and vaccines as a "repeatedly failed two-decade quest." While this may reflect your interpretation, such language risks compromising the neutrality required in these discussions.

Additionally, your earlier comments in this very Talk page suggest a strong predisposition against critical or alternative views regarding vaccination. This is evident in phrases such as "scores of doctors are still the minority and they are quite wrong" and "we won't give their conspiracy theories WP:FALSEBALANCE."

While it's critical to avoid false equivalence, this approach may inadvertently lead to the exclusion of valid historical facts.

FOURTH: Neutrality in Presenting Controversial Figures Like Kennedy

Wikipedia is meant to be an unbiased resource. When discussing contentious figures or cases, the goal should be to present facts in context and allow readers to form their own conclusions. This applies to both positive and negative aspects of a subject. By sidelining this case entirely, we risk appearing to favor one perspective over another, which undermines the encyclopedia's credibility.

CONCLUSION

In sum, my contribution is not about the scientific validity of the vaccine-autism link but about documenting an important legal milestone. Historical context, even when tied to contentious issues, is essential for understanding the broader landscape of public health, law, and societal debates.

Thus, I urge you to reconsider the proposed addition with this perspective in mind.

Thanks!! Survivor200 (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any citations that demonstrate anything about an "important legal milestone". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this point. The legal milestone lies in the fact that this case represents the first vaccine injury trial at the state level in United States history based on negligence claims. This is a factually verifiable milestone, irrespective of the outcome, and is supported by the primary legal documents from the case itself, such as the court filings and the jury verdict.

Primary legal sources are inherently reliable for documenting procedural facts, such as whether a trial occurred and its legal basis. These sources establish the unprecedented nature of this case in the broader legal landscape. For example, prior vaccine injury claims in the U.S. have primarily been adjudicated through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which operates under federal jurisdiction. This case bypasses the VICP entirely, introducing a state-level avenue for claims, a new legal precedent.

While there might not yet be extensive secondary analysis of this milestone, the significance of a legal "first" does not rely on widespread commentary to be noteworthy, especially when it introduces a novel legal path. The milestone is intrinsic to the case's procedural facts, which are well-documented and neutral in nature.

If there are specific types of citations or additional context you would find helpful to strengthen this point, I would be happy to work on that collaboratively. Survivor200 (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing substantive.

• Still no useful sources which show that this case is "groundbreaking", or in any way encyclopedic. The so-called "news" secondary source is the newsletter of CHD, hardly a reliable source, and even that article contains a caveat at the bottom that it is an opinion article. The enclopedia-worthiness seems to be in the mind of the one editor.
• There is presently little in this article about the legal fight to cancel vaccines, so it isn't clear what part of the article this lawsuit would pertain to. Discussing the disposition of the case could belong in the article which describes the case itself. I'm pretty sure there isn't any.

By the way, the supposed quotes of mine I think aren't mine. Also as I read the documents, the effort to get compensation for autism due to vaccine for this one person is factually a two decade quest which factually has failed so far. But no matter, my actual writings are probably just as offensive to that editor. It may be getting time for an admin to close this fruitless colloquy. -- M.boli (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. While I respect differing opinions, I’d like to kindly remind everyone involved in this discussion to remain focused on the facts and maintain a respectful tone. The dismissive and combative nature of your comment seems unnecessary and unhelpful in reaching a collaborative resolution.

To clarify, this case is not about canceling a vaccine, as you implied. That characterization misrepresents the case’s scope and significance and reflects a bias that detracts from a neutral, fact-based discussion. This case addresses a legal challenge over alleged vaccine injury at the state level, which is unprecedented in United States legal history outside of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). That alone makes it noteworthy, regardless of anyone’s personal stance on vaccines.

I’d encourage us to focus on improving Kennedy's wiki page by addressing the facts. If you have specific concerns about the phrasing or interpretation of the case's legal significance, I’m more than willing to engage with that. However, misrepresenting the case’s subject matter or resorting to adversarial rhetoric is unproductive and doesn’t serve Wikipedia’s goal of neutrality. Survivor200 (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

What we have here is a "new" user who does not understand basic Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing and notability, demonstrates an inability to grasp it when directed to it, and blasts us with Text Walls to obfuscate the point. This is all about a non-notable court case that reliable sources have made little to no note of. Case, as they say, closed. Zaathras (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but I’d like to address a couple of points constructively. While I am indeed a relatively new contributor, I believe Wikipedia encourages participation from users of all experience levels to build a richer, more diverse pool of knowledge. Dismissing my input based solely on my status as a newer editor feels unnecessarily exclusionary and contrary to the collaborative spirit of this platform.

Additionally, your declaration that "the case is closed" comes across as overly dictatorial and, frankly, unprofessional in this context. Discussions here thrive on reasoned debate and consensus, not unilateral decisions. If there’s a strong case for why this subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, I welcome a detailed explanation grounded in policy. However, asserting that the matter is settled without proper justification undermines the transparency and inclusivity that are fundamental to this community.

Let’s focus on the content and the policies that guide us rather than personal assumptions or authoritative declarations. I’m more than willing to work collaboratively toward improving entry r determining its proper status if given the opportunity to do so constructively.

Lastly, I’d like to clarify one more thing. I happen to be a lawyer who clerks for a federal judge at a high level. While my professional background is not directly relevant to this discussion, I feel compelled to mention it because of the apparent biases in some responses--especially stating that I'm just "a new user." For the record, I personally believe the court decided this case correctly. That said, my opinion is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

What does matter is the assertion that this was a "non-notable court case," which is both factually incorrect and dismissive of its broader implications. This case represents a unique and unprecedented legal milestone, as there had never been a state-level vaccination trial in U.S. history. The lack of widespread media attention likely stemmed from the controversy surrounding the issue during a period when the government was actively focused on administering the COVID-19 vaccine in February 2022. Survivor200 (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You are probably right, Kennedy's harassment of doctors who did nothing wrong with legal shenanigans, based on a study that has been known to be fraudulent for quite some time and the findings of which have been thoroughly refuted, is an interesting piece of information. But you need a reliable source talking about it. Note that it must be one that does not defend the fringe position Kennedy holds, because of WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Allow me to be pellucidly clear. Your opinion is irrelevant and your profession is irrelevant. If you cannot find multiple reliable sources that cover this court case in-depth, then it will not appear in an encyclopedia article such as this one. If there is a lack of media attention, then we do not include it in an encyclopedia. Zaathras (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Over 75 Nobel Laureates Oppose his nomination

I put this in the lead, but I'm finding it difficult to figure out where it goes in the body. Any thoughts? DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

How about here. Edit inserted new heading for this purpose. -- M.boli (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD, your are doing things in the wrong order. Body first, then maybe lead, but consider WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOTNEWS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's in the body and the lead now. It's going to be an uphill climb to argue that 80 Nobel Laureates are not notable and not WP:DUE. This is an historic letter. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is news from yesterday. Per WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOTNEWS it doesn't belong in the WP:LEAD, it's not a summary of article-text, just repetition. Notable as in WP:N does not apply, that's if you make a separate article about this whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization

The title of the position to which the subject is presumptively nominated is "Secretary of Health and Human Services". When it's modified by "United States", it should be lowercase... just as "president-elect" is when it's modified by "U.S. in the same sentence. I've proposed a compromise that keeps the capitalization according to MOS:JOBTITLES. Let's discuss it here. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 22:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Keeper of Albion: Let's discuss here instead of in edit summaries. The appropriate example from MOS:JOBTITLES is "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972". The title of President is modified by "US" in the example, in the same way that the title of Secretary is modified by "United States" in this article." —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 22:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Re-add presumptive nominee text

Some guy removed it for some reason citing https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:CRYSTAL when he has already been made a nominee, so not sure how that applies there. I don't have edit permissions so someone else has gotta do it. I would think that is pretty important information and every other cabinet nominee has it so I don't see why this nominee would have it removed. Grifspdax (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It is {{infobox officeholder}}. The officeholder-specific parameters were stripped out (effectively leaving only infobox person parameters).

A nominee is one step away from being an officeholder. A "presumptive nominee" is two steps away. It seems strange to me to use the officeholder infobox for somebody two steps away. To fix discordance (between office holder and two-steps-away-from-office-holder) the words "presumptive nominee" were added as extra text, along with HTML formatting and an embedded HTML comment explaining how to handle it. If the officeholder template is intended for people 2 steps away from holding office, it should have some parameters to indicate that, instead of relying on manual text, formatting, and instructional comments to editors. -- M.boli (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this is an AI-generated response because this has nothing to do with what I said. Grifspdax (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

A cabinet nomination can only be made by POTUS. That's Biden, until January 20 at noon. Biden has not nominated RFK Jr to any position. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Notice how it says "presumptive" Grifspdax (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

List of Awards and Honors

Was wholly deleted. While I agree with the editor that many of the honors are trivial, I think the removal warrants more discussion and justification.

The editors argument that the honors can be addressed in prose may have the weakness that the prose is too lengthy. List of awards and honors are common in biographic articles. What is the minimum number of notable awards needed to justify a list?

It would be useful to know this history of the list. Also, I do not want to list honors for a charlatan. trysten (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

A list of awards should only contains ones that are noteworthy, those that have seen coverage by reliable sources. In skimming the deleted content, they appear to be largely if not wholly sourced to primary and/or not-reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)