Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Beginning of paragraph 2 of "Vaccines and autism claims" misuses source

The wiki page says "Kennedy and Children's Health Defense have falsely claimed that vaccines cause autism."

But the source cited doesn't say this, it says "Mr. Kennedy is chairman of the board of Children’s Health Defense. Its website ties the increase in chronic childhood conditions such as asthma, autism and diabetes to a range of factors, including environmental toxins, pesticides and vaccines."

This is an incorrect use of the source, really the website mentioned in the article is what should be cited but from the nyt article it's unclear if autism is being said to be linked to vaccines. Unless there's an actual source for this it should be be promptly removed LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• There are literally hundreds of reliable sources out there linking Kennedy/CHD to claims that vaccines cause autism. Here's the first one I found from Time magazine [1]. Black Kite (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is probably the best source for it since it has a direct quote

  Web archive of Washington examiner LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Also it's never sourced anywhere that Kennedy made the claim himself, only that children's health made the claim. Another reason to remove it. LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Citation citation added from FactCheck.org: What RFK Jr. Gets Wrong About Autism. -- M.boli (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Disinformation in Russian invasion of Ukraine template discussion

@M.boli You mentioned RFK Jr. has echoed propaganda memes in relation to Russia. This may be true, but the section on his stances of foreign affairs does not mention this anywhere, which is why I removed the template. It is mentioned he opposes intervention in the Russo-Ukrainian war, which is a stance more favorable to Russia, but there is no mention of this stance being active disinformation nor an implicit or explicit support of Russia. Let me know your take on this, thanks. Slothwizard (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

After thinking about it further, I'm on the fence a bit about including the see-also.

RFK Jr'.s claim about slaughter of Russians in Donbas comes directly from Russian disinfo. There is currently a wikilink within that paragraph to the Russian disinformation article. I saw this link (which admittedly is an easter egg) before re-inserting the see-also to Russian disinfo operations. But I should have checked further.

Other claims of his, e.g. the 2014 Revolution of Dignity was actually a U.S. coup against Ukraine, are also well-known Russian propaganda. But as you note there is no sourcing for that. Absent any sources in the article showing Jr. is repeating Russian propaganda the see-also link is probably OR and should go. I completely agree with you on that.

A short amount of google-searching does reveal a few sources. Here is one example, a WaPo fact check. These analyses linking RFK Jr. to Russian propaganda would need to be edited into the paragraph before the see-also is supported. And it might be complicated or the sources aren't good enough. So I'm a bit on the fence. Unless and until such sources are added, I'm OK with admitting a mistake and removal of the the see-also. -- M.boli (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! As it is currently worded, I will remove the see also. Let me know if anything Slothwizard (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2024

Please edit source number 240 to point to Robert F. Kennedy Jr: CIA, Power, Corruption, War, Freedom, and Meaning | Lex Fridman Podcast #388 at timestamp 1:55:55 Aboutzero (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: WaPo is a WP:SECONDARYSOURCE. A podcast is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. We prefer secondary sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Change lead sentence description from "politician" to "former political candidate"

Why is Kennedy described as a politician in the lead? He's never held political office and has run for office for a total of 4 months out of his entire career. If the politics should be mentioned in the lead sentence, it should be "former political candidate". --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per our article at politician, A politician is a person who participates in policy-making processes, usually holding a position in government. He fits that definition, especially if he's confirmed at HHS. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu. He doesn't though. That's more crystal-ball territory, given he hasn't even been confirmed, much less involved in any gov. position or policy-making. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

He definitely does. He's headed an anti-vaccine advocacy group for decades. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

But that's not a political office? Are you considering any sort of advocacy group a political post? --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You are 100% correct and RFK Jr. should not be described as "politician" on this article. I do not know why Muboshgu thinks that heading an advocacy group makes one a politician. Del Bigtree is not described as a politician, despite likewise heading an anti-vaccine advocacy group for almost a decade.

Muboshgu's first argument was unfortunately WP:CRYSTALBALL territory, and second one was based on RFK Jr. leading an anti-vaccine advocacy group, which does not hold water because it is not applied to any other chairmen of advocacy groups. This would narrow down Muboshgu's case that heading an advocacy group for at least a decade makes one a politician - well, not a workable definition. Brat Forelli🦊 01:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. You said it better than I did! The example I was thinking of was Ingrid Newkirk of PETA. She's advocated for initiatives/laws/etc. for decades, yet is not considered a politician since she's a nonprofit activist. I don't see any difference between Newkirk and Kennedy in that regard. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Bias

The conspiracy theory section has a blatant, uncited “chemtrails do not exist”, i am not here to argue one side or the other, but maybe it should be removed unless its sourced? Jaybainshetland (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Chemtrails do not exist and we won't provide WP:FALSEBALANCE by suggesting that they could. (The comments on chemtrails are indeed sourced.) – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, i am not here to argue one side or the other, but shouldn’t their at least be a credible source? Jaybainshetland (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It is sourced at the end of the paragraph, but if that's not enough, there are dozens more available in Chemtrail conspiracy theory, if you feel the need to add them. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 22 November 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)

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)