Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
We should add about awards as his research into mercury poisoning in vaccine are viable sources. 220.255.51.123 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On rising support of germ theory of disease

The Real Anthony Fauci(2021)

“The ubiquity of pasteurization and vaccination are only two of the many indicators of the domineering ascendancy of germ theory as the cornerstone of contemporary public policy. A $1 trillion pharmaceutical industry pushing patented pills, powders, pricks, potions, and poisons and the powerful professions of virology and vaccinology.” page 285-291 (disputes the validity of germ theory of disease) Skoll43 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jr.'s germ theory denialism is briefly described in the HIV/AIDS denialism section. Perhaps it should have its own section header? Are you suggesting it could be fleshed out a little more? -- M.boli (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFK Jr. doesn't know basic facts about the job he seeks.

It's not just his unusual views about health care or his personal peccadilloes* but his ignorance of the job that is newsworthy. The last item has been evident for some time but is getting more attention in his hearings. This Chattanooga Times Free Press story starts to get at this point:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. struggles to answer questions on Medicare and Medicaid at confirmation hearing | Chattanooga Times Free Press

It notes that Kennedy "inaccurately claimed that Medicaid is fully paid for by the federal government — it's not; states and federal taxpayers fund it. He also said most Americans have purchased a Medicare Advantage plan, when only about 1 in 10 Americans have."

Subsequent to that article being posted, RFK Jr. was unable to answer some more very basic questions about Medicaid.

(And I think it's important that Wikipedia note not only that Kennedy is so ignorant of the job but also that it's not normal for nominees to be as unprepared as he is.)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

*But since there's already a section in this article on RFK Jr.'s "Treatment of dead animals," that would be a good place to note that his cousin, the former ambassador Caroline Kennedy, issued a letter yesterday (as well as a video of her reading the letter) in which she called on the Senate to reject his nomination for a variety of reasons. Along the way, she noted that as a young man, he "enjoyed showing off how he put baby chickens and mice in a blender to feed to his hawks ... It was often a perverse scene of despair and violence.”

Caroline Kennedy slams RFK Jr. as 'predator' before confirmation hearing - ABC News

Caroline Kennedy Alleges Her Cousin RFK Jr. Put Mice in Blenders and Worse NME Frigate (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More on today's hearings. In addition to saying of Medicaid that the "premiums are too high" (which is confusing because Medicaid recipients don't pay premiums), RFK Jr., "also missed big when Sen. Ben Ray LujĂĄn asked him to estimate how many babies are born in the U.S. each year on Medicaid. Kennedy, after conceding he had no clue, estimated 30 million. That is about eight times more than the overall number of births the U.S. had in total in 2023. About 1.4 million of those were on Medicaid, LujĂĄn informed Kennedy."
sources: RFK Jr. Completely Fumbles Basic Medicaid Facts in Confirmation Hearing
And also this story came out today: "RFK Jr. secretly recorded his second wife during their bitter divorce fight and in one conversation acknowledged he was 'polygamous' and blamed her for that. One recording might have violated state law—in a messy saga that ended with her suicide."
source: SCOOP: RFK Jr. Secretly Recorded Second Wife During Divorce and Acknowledged Being “Polygamous” – Mother Jones NME Frigate (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph

It strikes me as somewhat incorrect and unnecessary for the first paragraph of this article to unequivocally state that RFK Jr. is an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist as these claims are both somewhat disputed and far more importantly he is most well known for being Secretary of Health and Human Services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashavansteenis (talk ‱ contribs) 22:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's not the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Not yet, anyway. NME Frigate (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opening should read as follows" "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, and author. He is the nominee for United States Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) in President Donald Trump's second cabinet."
The mentioning of being anti-vaccine and a conspiracy theorist is in direct violation of the following 3 directives:
1. Neutral Point of View (NPOV) – Wikipedia requires that articles maintain a neutral tone. Labeling someone as a conspiracy theorist or anti-vaccine activist could be seen as a subjective characterization rather than a neutral description. Instead, Wikipedia prefers phrasing that describes actions and positions with reliable sources rather than applying potentially loaded labels.
2. Verifiability (V) – Every claim must be supported by reliable, independent sources. While there may be sources that describe RFK Jr. using these terms, Wikipedia typically requires strong consensus across multiple reputable sources before using such descriptions. Even then, they are often presented in an attributed form (e.g., "RFK Jr. has been described by [source] as an anti-vaccine activist.").
3. Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) – Wikipedia has stricter standards for living individuals to prevent defamatory or controversial unsourced claims. Content must be well-sourced, written in a neutral tone, and avoid unnecessary contentious labels unless they are widely accepted in scholarly or journalistic discourse. 74.219.135.195 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Referring to RFK Jr. as "anti-vaccine" is accomplishing that.
2. V is achieved for this, as evidenced in the sources. "Has been described by" is unnecessary WP:WEASEL wording.
3. BLP standards are met as all claims are sourced and not defamatory. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's in the first sentence, as MOS:FIRST says "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject." It's likely notable enough to be in the article or even the lead, but probably not the first sentence. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that doctors around the world are expressing horror at the idea that this guy may be about to determine US health politics, it is extremely notable. His nomination, on the other hand, may be a flash in the pan, soon to be unfit for first sentence if the tiny sane wing of the Republican party is still big enough to prevent him. If not, the absurdity of his ideas about health will become even more notable after he gains power. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If he gains power, his ideas will per definition not be absurd.[sarcasm] GrÄbergs GrÄa SÄng (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying it's notable, but are you sure it's notable enough for the very first sentence? As for the position, even the nomination process itself is a part of its' nobility, and perhaps the most important thing about him at the moment. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And @GrÄbergs GrÄa SÄng out of curiosity, were you using sarcasm to support or criticize @Hob Gadling? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I was imagining a "-This is anti-vaxx! - Surely not, it's from the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services!" argument. Not important (I hope). GrÄbergs GrÄa SÄng (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2025

Needs to be updated in a few locations to "current United States Secretary of Health and Human Services" to drop all places where it say nominee Jung maestro (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: He would have to be confirmed first. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well he did get confirmed and I see the edit has been done. 2601:483:400:1CD0:C6EE:32E2:F211:D01E (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now that he has been confirmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Founder and former Chairman of Children's Health Defense

Regarding deletion of the term "founder", the web site of the CHD clearly states that RFK Jr was a founder: "Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Founder and former Chairman of the Board and Chief Legal Counsel of Children’s Health Defense ..." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I thought we'd had this discussion before. I suspect that the issue is that it doesn't match the actual CHD article. Still, even though it's a primary source you'd expect CHD to be a reliable source on who their actual founders were, so I have restored it. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources listed the article about the group tell a more complete story: World Mercury Project was founded by Eric Gladen in 2007 and changed its name to Children's Health Defense in 2018, four years after Kennedy joined. I strongly recommend this article reflects this. Robincantin (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That may fall under WP:Primary source, but several of the lead’s other sources simply say that he is its [former] chairman. The article itself says it wasn’t founded by him; a hidden note will work for this. Bourne Ballin (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2025

In Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#COVID-19:

−
In the book, Kennedy calls Fauci "a powerful technocrat who helped orchestrate and execute 2020s historic coup d'Ă©tat against Western democracy". He claims without proof that Fauci and Gates had schemed to prolong the pandemic and exaggerate its effects, promoting expensive vaccinations for the benefit of "a powerful vaccine cartel".
+
In the book, Kennedy calls Fauci "a powerful technocrat who helped orchestrate and execute 2020's historic coup d'Ă©tat against Western democracy". He claims without proof that Fauci and Gates had schemed to prolong the pandemic and exaggerate its effects, promoting expensive vaccinations for the benefit of "a powerful vaccine cartel".

b3stJ (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per MOS:DECADES EvergreenFir (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is obviously not talking about the decade, as it would be the "coup of the 2020s". Unless {{Sic}} applies?
b3stJ (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, to add to what I'm saying, he's definitely referring to the year 2020, rather than the decade beginning with 2020.
b3stJ (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Good catch! Also note it is punctuated correctly in the book. Note the full sentence is:

In this book, I track the rise of Anthony Fauci from his start as a young public health researcher and physician through his metamorphosis into the powerful technocrat who helped orchestrate and execute 2020's historic coup d'Ă©tat against Western democracy.

— --Introduction, page xv

so the snipped quote in Wikipedia incorrectly started with "a". -- M.boli (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hate Speech

If you can't AGF, you can't partake in discussion on a contentious topic. I should have closed this last week. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 article is false and contains biased language that constitutes hate speech and defamation of Robert F. Kennedy and his family. Given that he is a relative of a revered past president, this behavior is disappointing and disgusting, and it should be changed to include objective language rather than subjective falsehoods. Let us return to academia and avoid further discrediting academics by this immature disinformation effort. When placibo examinations are undertaken for the first time, scientific facts will be revealed about vaccination safety. 2601:195:4080:2020:88BD:E61F:8597:A14F (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./FAQ . A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree that hate speech used, this article has affected by griefing by users ignoring WP:Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia pushes that Neutral Point of View is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and advises that when articles discuss publically controversial claims, editors should balance material with other sources to achieve a more neutral tone (see WP:NPOV). I stringly advise that others adhere to this principle when editing on Wikipedia. ZephyrTurtle14 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The state of the article as of the timestamp this comment adherers to the Neutral point of view. NPOV does not mean that all sites get represented equally, the fringe beliefs of alternate medicine and vaccine denialism do jot get weighted equally as reliable sources. i.e. "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Note those italics. Zaathras (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling editors of this article griefers is a clear violation of WP:AGF. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "assuming good faith" means "abandon all sense of reason and critical thinking at the door". Sometimes griefing is just clearly griefing. You don't need to assume that someone who goes to the Teletubbies page and fills it with links to porn sites is acting in "good faith".24.182.239.226 (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"RFK Jr." vs "R. F. K. Jr."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography § MOS:BIOEXCEPT: and/or
 – Dan Leonard (talk ‱ contribs) 00:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Leonard, whether or not the subject himself has a preference between the two, the media clearly prefers "RFK Jr.", no periods or spaces: [1][2][3] Also, please mind WP:BRD on this contentious topic article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has our own style guide independent of media organizations. The AP Stylebook doesn't use spaces in names, but the Wikipedia MOS requires it. The New York Times rarely uses initials for anyone, preferring "Mr. Kennedy", although it did use R.F.K. today.[1] On whether or not the subject himself has a preference between the two, the only exemption to MOS:INITIALS is at MOS:BIOEXCEPT, where editors must show that both the media as a whole all uses a different address style, and that the person has declared and exclusively uses that style. Kennedy only very rarely refers to himself by his initials, always preferring his full expanded name (presumably to rely on his quite famous last name). Have a glance at the images at Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign: if he preferred to go by his initials, his campaign would have used them somewhere in its advertising, but it's all just "Kennedy". This article has had his initials in the lead since its second edit in 2004, predating the MOS, and has simply never been brought up to the modern MOS standard. Dan Leonard (talk ‱ contribs) 22:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Leonard, MOS:BIOEXCEPT says the exceptions to a period and space after an initial are if (1) the person has clearly declared and consistently used a preferred exceptional style for their own name; or (2) an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that exceptional style. Clearly, (2) is met. The NYT is an outlier, as they always are with naming. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting myself, it says "or", not "and". This is an issue for MOS and I will take it up there. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Committee sends R.F.K. Jr.'s health secretary nomination to full Senate". The New York Times. 2025-02-04.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2025

Vaccine misinformation promoter is misleading. Vaccine skeptic or anti-mrna vaccine skeptic makes more sense than just blanket labeling someone a conspiracy theorist. This article is woke, biased and full of leftist propaganda. 45.62.187.133 (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not an edit request. Heart (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2025 (2)

Under the Anti Vaccine section RFK is incorrectly quoted as saying there are no vaccines that are safe and effective.

What RFK actually said was "There are no vaccines that are safe and effective for all people"

This is a gross misrepresentation and it appearing in a section talking about RFK spreading misinformation is comically absurd. 2600:1016:B13D:A936:4194:18BD:2787:3ACF (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump not given first name in opening paragraph

I've been looking at pages of other presidential candidates who withdraw and endorse someone else, along with cabinet members, and the first time the person is mentioned, they are always given their full name or title, last name, e.g. President Truman. However, in this article it just says RFK endorsed Trump. I know Trump is very famous, but shouldn't he be mentioned the way any other page would and not treat him differently because of an assumption the reader knows who he is? SonsyEpicMap (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I've fixed it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though I feel that a mononymic is likely in future, along with Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and all the other great heroes of this form of government. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2025

RFK has NOT been sworn in yet and therefore must be labeled health secretary-designate Envyakkadian (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: He has been confirmed in the vote held today. Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They said "sworn in", not "confirmed". Swearing in happens after confirmation. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needing new consensus on lead sentence

Now that Kennedy is the Secretary of Health and Human Services, we need to reassess whether the phrase "anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist" remains appropriate in the lead sentence. While a consensus was reached in April 2024 Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 7#RfC: description of RFK Jr's views on vaccines etc., his new role as a government official warrants a new discussion. There is also the issue of WP:Neutral. His views on vaccines and other controversial positions are thoroughly covered in the article—does their inclusion in the lead remain necessary? TimeToFixThis | 🕒 18:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new job doesn't render his past conspiracy-mongering any less relevant or notable. Zaathras (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His past activism and controversial views are certainly notable, and they are well-documented in the article. However, WP:LEAD advises that the lead should summarize the most relevant aspects of a subject’s notability. Given that he is now the Secretary of Health and Human Services, should the focus of the lead shift to reflect his current role first, while addressing his past activism in a later sentence? His views on vaccines and other controversies are already covered in detail further down in the article, so we should consider whether their inclusion in the lead remains necessary. A new consensus is needed to determine whether the current framing remains appropriate. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 18:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
determine whether their inclusion in the lead remains necessary??? In what universe does "a person is the boss of medicine in one country" make "the same person is also a vicious, incompetent enemy of medicine" less important instead of far, far more important? Of course both properties belong in the first sentence. Duh. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn’t whether Kennedy’s past activism is relevant, but whether leading with that characterization aligns with WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD now that he is a government official. The lead should reflect the most defining aspects of his notability while maintaining balance. His vaccine views and controversies are already covered in detail further down in the article.
For comparison, Donald Trump is a convicted felon, yet his lead does not introduce him that way because WP:LEAD prioritizes summarizing his overall notability rather than emphasizing one aspect. If we apply the same standard, Kennedy’s role as Secretary of Health and Human Services is now a defining aspect of his public profile, and it makes sense to introduce him that way first. Otherwise, should we apply this logic across all articles and cloud every public figure’s lead with their most controversial views or past actions, regardless of their current role? TimeToFixThis | 🕒 18:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just on a point of order, that was late March to April 2024 rather than 2023. Beyond that, I don't think anything has really changed. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, yes, you are correct. I will fix that in my opening statement. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 18:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He kept engaging in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories during his confirmation hearing.[4] Calling him "anti-vaccine" IS neutral and it is DUE for the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn’t just whether ‘anti-vaccine’ is accurate or neutral, but whether it remains the most appropriate way to introduce him now that he is a government official. WP:NPOV requires that articles maintain balance and avoid undue weight, while WP:LEAD states that the introduction should summarize the most defining aspects of a subject’s notability. His past activism is well-documented, but his role as Secretary of Health and Human Services is now a major part of his public profile. Since his vaccine views are already covered in detail later in the article, continuing to lead with that characterization may not align with neutrality guidelines. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 18:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Since his vaccine views are already covered in detail later in the article, continuing to lead with that characterization may not align with neutrality guidelines." Please see WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is an important guideline, but it does not override WP:NPOV or WP:LEAD’s requirement that the introduction fairly summarize the subject’s most defining aspects. The issue isn’t whether Kennedy’s past activism should be covered—it already is, in detail, in the body of the article—but whether its prominence in the lead remains appropriate now that he is a government official.
For comparison, Donald Trump is both a convicted felon and has been found liable for sexual assault, yet his lead does not introduce him that way because WP:LEAD prioritizes summarizing his overall notability rather than emphasizing one aspect. If we apply the same standard, Kennedy’s role as Secretary of Health and Human Services is now a defining aspect of his public profile, and it makes sense to introduce him that way first. Otherwise, should we apply this logic across all articles and cloud every public figure’s lead with their most controversial views or past actions, regardless of their current role? TimeToFixThis | 🕒 18:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hob Gadling TimeToFixThis | 🕒 18:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look over any previous responses for this issue by User:Hob Gadling. There is a clear indicator he has a biased approach towards the individual, and anything he states is against changing the introduction paragraph at all. He continues to not compromise at all, and often times continues to question intelligence of people, despite proper media references and studies. I recommend moving around his thoughts and not letting him be a primary decider of this post. He's clearly been shielding this entire article for his own thoughts or perceptions. Not taking in factual evidence or opinions of others. Envyforme (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Envyforme, focus on content, not on contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I highly recommend you say that to him as well then, as it has been a known for him to attack the contributor focusing on the content. Envyforme (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the most appropriate way to introduce him now that he is a government official We do not have a MOS:BROWNNOSE rule that says we have to hide negative stuff about powerful people.
his vaccine views are already covered in detail later in the article is exactly the reason why it belongs in the lede, since the lede is supposed to summarize the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His past activism No, he's still engaged in that activism, and now he can direct HHS towards it. Both his anti-vaccine activism and status as HHS secretary (once sworn in) belong in the lead sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-science crusades are the dominant theme of RFK's life for the past several decades. Appointing him to a job where he can destroy public health does not make him any less of an anti-vaccinationist, AIDS denialist, chemtrailer, anti-flouridationist, or raw-milk nutjob.
Just because the Senate is in the grip of the GOP's collective reality-denial doesn't mean we need to be. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is not anti-vaccine, he is about raising questions on the safety and transparency of said vaccines. The ethicality of pharmaceutical has been proven to be shady at best. Countless time (all sourced) did they lie, cheat and giving people unsafe products.
[5]https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/01/oxycontin-sackler-family-profits-opioid-crisis-court-files-reveal
[6]https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/business/09merck.html
[7]https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/pharmaceutical-giant-astrazeneca-pay-520-million-label-drug-marketing
[8]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-18673220
[9]https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history 47.185.138.232 (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RS are clear in calling him an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist, and bad actions by the Sackler family and other big pharma companies is irrelevant to this topic of discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you win lawsuits though, is someone really a conspiracy theory? Seems a bit of a stretch coming from me. Envyforme (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter how it seems to you. It does not seem "a bit of a stretch" to reliable sources, and that is what counts on Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to challenge the consensus of Jr. being a conspiracy theorist then open a RFC in a new thread here. Whether he is a a conspiracy theorist or not is not the topic of this thread. For now, the consensus is that he is, it's whether it belongs in the lead sentence. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That information should remain in the lead, but I would support moving his cabinet position to earlier in the first sentence. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely should be updated. This has been discussed before by multiple individuals, and it always comes down to a biased opinion. This violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view is handled. that should be addressed by everyone. Envyforme (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole start of this thread is nonsensical. Being appointed to a new job changes absolutely nothing. If anything, it is even more problematic that a conspiracy theorist is appointed to a government. Also, this is not "American Wikipedia" and being a member of the US government matters no more (or less) than being a member of the Tajiki government or the Bangladeshi government. It's not as if being a member of the US government provides some special shield from accurate coverage. Jeppiz (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this and I also like the fact it's in chronological order. Moxy🍁 23:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I agree with your statement here.... Your opinion is its problematic a conspiracy theorist is in the position. However, you don't see the same type of context calling trump a felon on his page. This mindset doesn't meet the Neutral point of view Envyforme (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should reread the article you're linking to. Moxy🍁 23:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1. The idea we should update this since he is now in a powerful position is absurd. NPOV doesn’t mean we should whitewash inconvenient truths. Quite the opposite, actually. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jeppiz has it right, and as Gtoffoletto says,"The idea we should update this since he is now in a powerful position is absurd." To decree "Needing new consensus" is also absurd, and bludgeoning the page is not how you go about finding consensus anyway. Carlstak (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jeppiz is right, this isn't America Wikipedia and changes within the American political system doesn't change the secondary sourcing that Wikipedia is built on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2025 (2)

The white house press secretary has confirmed that RFK Jr. will be assuming office on Thursday, February 13. The "Assuming office" section, currently marked "TBD," should be changed accordingly.

[1] [2] Duneun (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The change has been made by someone else. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/13/trump-modi-ukraine-nato-rfk-doge/d71a6d4c-ea0f-11ef-969b-cfbefacb1eb3_story.html
  2. ^ https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2025-02-13/the-latest-trump-prepares-broad-tariffs-order-ahead-of-meeting-with-indias-modi

RfC: Whether to call RFK Jr. an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence

Should RFK Jr. Be called an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that there has been a previous RfC about this topic, however, in light of the fact he has been nominated and confirmed as secretary of health and human services, I propose we reconsider this.

Before commenting, you may want to look at the previous RfC, WP:NPOV, MOS:FIRSTBIO, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, and a very similar, recent RfC. You may also scroll up and look through the archives to look at previous discussions of this topic.

Please note these points:

- This is about whether to include this in the first sentence, so bringing up that there's RS by itself is not enough for something to be on there.

- Please try to avoid unprovable or speculative claims, or WP:OR. What counts as this can sometimes be subjective, but you get the point.

- You can add any suggestion you think fits and could achieve WP:Consensus here.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Keeping

  • 1) While his association with conspiracy theories and views on vaccination are notable, and have RS, I think the first sentence should only contain the core info about someone. MOS:LEADCLUTTER states "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Labeling him as an "anti-vaccine activist" or "conspiracy theorist" may be relevant, but it's not central to his most important and current role. A comparison to figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk (who has a WP:GA rated article) —both of whom have been linked to conspiracy theories — shows that this type of label is typically not placed in the first sentence for other prominent figures. In these cases, such associations are important, but not defining to their overall identity in the context of their articles.
2) Although well sourced, these contentious labels about RFK Jr. should be used cautiously and only if absolutely necessary. WP:NPOV and other similar rules emphasize that contentious material about living people should only be included when it adds substantial value to understanding the person’s significance. Given that RFK Jr.'s most recent role is his nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services, which has tremendous impact and relevance, we should focus on that in the first sentence to remain neutral. In accordance with MOS:OPEN, the first sentence should avoid excessive specificity, and using such labels could create unnecessary controversy without adding significant value to his profile in the introduction. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The argument that ‘we must establish notability by including these labels’ is inconsistent with how other biographies are written. Donald Trump is a convicted felon and was found liable for sexual assault, yet his lead does not begin with those facts because WP:LEAD prioritizes summarizing his overall notability rather than emphasizing specific controversies. Similarly, Elon Musk has been linked to conspiracy theories, but his lead does not introduce him that way.
If we aim for consistency, Kennedy’s lead should follow the same standard. Wikipedia does not typically define notable public figures primarily by their controversies, even when those controversies are well-documented. Instead, a more neutral approach would be to introduce him in a way that reflects his overall career and public recognition, while addressing his past activism in a later sentence. This ensures a fair summary without overemphasizing one aspect at the expense of neutrality.
Proposal:

Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, and author who has been the 26th United States secretary of health and human services since 2025.

"What would we put in the first few sentences.....What do you believe he's notable for prior to his current appointment" This concern raised by @Moxy can be solved by this proposal. Before he became a government official he was notable as being a politician, environment lawyer, and author.--TimeToFixThis | 🕒 06:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Keeping

  • Per your own Wikipedia link of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, only a small fraction of the current article focuses on his new role as Secretary of Health, whilst vastly more of it looks at his conspiracism, so it clearly isn't yet true that this new role is what he's most notable for. If/when the article changes (by for example, his policy decisions becoming reported and commented on), then the intro might need updating. But he hasn't done anything yet!
Moreover, it's factually untrue to say that his conspiracism is "not central" to his new role - health conspiracies are obviously extremely relevant to health policy decisions if someone believes in them. 2A00:23C7:CAD4:800:6DED:7AF6:C832:B699 (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Not really seeing any consensus for a change above... this seems awful premature. My question would be if he's not known for these things what is he notable for? What would we put in the first few sentences..... What do you believe he's notable for prior to his current appointment? Perhaps proposal for the sentence would help? I'm not sure we could establish notability without mentioning the things he's notable for.Moxy🍁 21:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Premature RfC Closure about calling him a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxer

@Jeppiz The fact that he got nominated for secretary of health and human services is extremely important and notable, and I think it changes the criteria entirely (by raising the bar for what goes in the first sentence) from the previous RfC.

@Hemiauchenia @Jeppiz WP:SNOW should not be taken lightly, and a few hours with 3 disagreements is usually far from warranted for a premature closure. It was also before I could respond to criticism like that from @Moxy.

As for my proposition, as @Moxy asked, for the first sentence, we could have something like "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, author, and the 26th United States secretary of health and human services since February 13, 2025." We could add his mention of conspiracy theories and anti vaccination to later in the lead, possibly even the second or third sentences, but my point is that I don't think it's warranted for the first, especially now that the bar has been raised with his new extremely notable position.

Again, you don't have to agree, but I'd rather hear counterarguments and have this discussion in the RfC page instead of here, so could you reopen it?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC#BEFORE Moxy🍁 05:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence already mentions his new position, as it should. I see no reason why his conspiracy history that makes up the vast majority of his life and is a primary component of his new political position even should be removed from that same sentence. His new position doesn't change any of that. Nothing has changed from the last RfC. SilverserenC 05:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy @Silver seren Again, what's in the first sentence shouldn't be based on how long someone has had a certain trait, but how notable it is. Before his position, his anti-vaccination and conspiracy theories may have been his most notable things, but my argument is that it's not anymore. This also explains why I reopened it: light of a new evidence allows for a new RfC, as I believe is explained in the rules.
Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable for multiple things now. All of those things are mentioned in the first sentence, as they should. Why would any of those notable things be removed from that sentence? SilverserenC 05:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been reopened. Idk how to close this thread but your request has been fulfilled. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Mention his ties to the radical extremist ultra far right?

Should we mention his ties to radical conservative extremists like trump and musk? 173.67.182.46 (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is built on what other reliable secondary sources report. It seems unlikely that quality sources would use these exact words. Otherwise the article already states that he is part of Trump's cabinet, so his ties to Trump are implicit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.