Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#Incredibly biased article

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:

[https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2025/jan/29/robert-f-kennedy-jr-struggles-to-answer-questions-on-medicare-and-medicaid-at-confirmation-hearing-tfp/ 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.)

• Agree, but... in the current climate, ignorance of the job, and smug, irresponsible acceptance of the role, and the ethical and practical implications of such ignorance and irresponsibility, are by now so routine, that it is doubtful to what extent it is notable. JonRichfield (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, would need to compare him to other contemporary nominees, where he is comparably qualified. Drsruli (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:He's done an awful lot of schooling at ivy league colleges for you all to basically be calling him stupid. And this supposed act of cruelty was from when he was a child, how far back olin your past do we get to look to find your flaws? I love how Wikipedia says he's a conspiracy theorist, when his conspiracies keep coming true they're not conspiracies anymore. 2600:1010:B131:24F3:AC5:ED9C:DD14:5C54 (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::Education and intelligence are different things. But nobody even called him stupid yet. Higher education is focused. That is, you can learn how to be lawyer, as Kennedy did, at leagues as ivy as possible, and have not the slightest clue of how science works and on how medicine works. Just as Kennedy has not.

::Independent of that, this is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:::When RFK says “most Americans have purchased a Medicare Advantage plan” he is talking about most Medicare-eligible Americans. Medicare advantage plans account for ~ 54% of the overall Medicare market. It appears that the author of that article did some lazy math in order to point out that only 1 in 10 Americans have purchased a Medicare Advantage plan. Obviously it would be impossible for a majority of Americans to purchase a Medicare advantage plan when a majority of Americans aren’t Medicare-eligible. 24.61.196.172 (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Why is that contribution on this page? How is it supposed to improve the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Turtletennisfogwheat, please see: WP:NOTAFORUM. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

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

*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.”

[https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/caroline-kennedy-slams-rfk-jr-predator-confirmation-hearing/story?id=118186988 Caroline Kennedy slams RFK Jr. as 'predator' before confirmation hearing - ABC News]

[https://people.com/caroline-kennedy-alleges-her-cousin-rfk-jr-put-mice-in-blenders-and-worse-8782055 Caroline Kennedy Alleges Her Cousin RFK Jr. Put Mice in Blenders and Worse] NME Frigate (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

: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 Luján 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, Luján informed Kennedy."

:sources: [https://www.thedailybeast.com/rfk-jr-completely-fumbles-basic-medicaid-facts-in-confirmation-hearing/ 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: [https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/01/robert-f-kennedy-jr-richardson-divorce-polygamous-secret-recording-suicide-department-health-and-human-services-trump/ SCOOP: RFK Jr. Secretly Recorded Second Wife During Divorce and Acknowledged Being “Polygamous” – Mother Jones] NME Frigate (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Ask Not by Maureen Callahan also identifies Cheryl Hines as being a mistress during Kennedy's 2nd marriage, while the Wiki states that they began dating in 2012. Perhaps publicly that may be true, they had been involved in an extramarital affair. AubreySF (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Collapse top|Obsolete discussion (RfC has been started)}}

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)

:A new job doesn't render his past conspiracy-mongering any less relevant or notable. Zaathras (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::{{tq|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)

::::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)

: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)

::Apologies, yes, you are correct. I will fix that in my opening statement. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 18:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:He kept engaging in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories during his confirmation hearing.[https://apnews.com/article/rfk-jr-vaccine-trump-science-autism-9b99621b01f11b7f0bdc81e5a0b82d2b] Calling him "anti-vaccine" IS neutral and it is DUE for the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::"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)

::::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)

:::::{{u|Hob Gadling}} TimeToFixThis | 🕒 18:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::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)

::::::{{u|Envyforme}}, focus on content, not on contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::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)

:::{{tq|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.

:::{{tq|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)

:::{{tq| 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)

:::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)

::::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.

::::[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/01/oxycontin-sackler-family-profits-opioid-crisis-court-files-reveal]https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/01/oxycontin-sackler-family-profits-opioid-crisis-court-files-reveal

::::[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/business/09merck.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/business/09merck.html

::::[https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/pharmaceutical-giant-astrazeneca-pay-520-million-label-drug-marketing]https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/pharmaceutical-giant-astrazeneca-pay-520-million-label-drug-marketing

::::[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-18673220]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-18673220

::::[https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history]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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

:::::::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)

:::::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)

:::::User:47.185.138.232 is a clearly partisan user who only wants to edit with a clearly conspiratorial agenda. I suggest his suggestions to be ignored by everyone in this thread. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

: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)

: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view neutral point of view is handled.] that should be addressed by everyone. Envyforme (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

:Agree with this and I also like the fact it's in chronological order. Moxy🍁 23:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump on his page]. This mindset doesn't meet the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Neutral point of view] Envyforme (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::I think you should reread the article you're linking to. Moxy🍁 23:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:+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)

: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)

: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)

This discussion led to the RfC at #Whether to call RFK Jr. an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. Further comments should be made there.

{{Collapse bottom}}

{{anchor|rfc_6AF9487}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1742605270}}

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)

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, perhaps since the "bar" for what goes in the first sentence should be raised.

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)

`

{{Not a ballot}}

{{disdis|Manuductive|spi=Lardlegwarmers}}

• Oppose:

: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 "{{tq|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)

::{{+1}}. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::{{+1}}. Chariotsacha (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::His status as a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer {{tq|adds substantial value to understanding the person’s significance}} as he's going to try to upend how children get vaccinations and how we all get annual flu shots.[https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/20/kennedy-prepares-shakeup-of-vaccine-advisers-00205223][https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/02/20/nx-s1-5304233/cdc-vaccine-meeting-delayed][https://fortune.com/well/article/rfk-jr-cdc-cancels-flu-vaccine-campaign-amid-surge/] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::is he opposed to all vaccines? I think "vaccine sceptic" is a far more apt term LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::::He said there is no safe and effective vaccine, "sceptic" is a dishonest euphemism, and it does not matter what you think, only what reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• 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:

:{{tq2|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.}} {{tq|"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 @{{u|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)

*Oppose Keeping. The pejorative and dismissive connotation of the label "conspiracy theorist" clearly violates NPOV. While those labels may reflect some of the views associated with RFK Jr., the tone seems biased. In a neutral article, it's crucial to represent individuals in a way that acknowledges the facts related to their actions or views without using loaded terms that could be seen as judgmental, especially in such a prominent position in the article. Labeling him a "conspiracy theorist" seems like name-calling, which goes against BLP. Better to say in the third paragraph something like: {{tq2|In recent years, RFK Jr. has gained attention for promoting vaccine skepticism and various conspiracy theories, which have led to controversy and criticism.}} These things are not as weighty and notable as being confirmed as Secretary of HHS, being the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy, and his work with the Natural Resources Defense Council and founding the Waterkeeper Alliance. Thus, they should not go so high up in the lead. And giving the whole context helps the reader understand what's actually going on rather than stamping him with this vague label that could risk seeming like Wikipedia is trying to smear the guy rather than giving a clear and neutral expression of the facts.

:5) In 2023, he launched an independent campaign for the U.S. presidency, initially running as a Democrat before switching to an independent bid. Though his campaign gained attention for its populist and anti-establishment rhetoric, RFK Jr. suspended his campaign in August 2024, and endorsed Donald Trump.
Manuductive (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC) _{User blocked as a sock. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)}

::*Oppose keeping - I do like @Manuductive's proposed idea for 3rd paragraph. "Conspiracy Theorist" is a label and he is not known to be a conspiracy theorist, and we are not setting precedent by labeling everybody ever involved/partaking in conspiracies as a "Conspiracy theorist". Just note that he has history for vaccine skepticism and various conspiracy theories.

::MaximusEditor (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::"he is not known to be a conspiracy theorist"

:::The second half of this sentence in the intro has six citations indicating otherwise: "Since 2005, Kennedy has promoted vaccine misinformation and public-health conspiracy theories." David O. Johnson (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::I agree completely in everything Manuductive said 2603:7080:C63E:61D4:A4BC:E7A4:D982:DB54 (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose keeping — (strong) — seconding the positions above mine, I don’t have much to add beyond the contention that we are treading on dangerous grounds regarding neutrality. Declaring that he has be “found to be a conspiracy theorist by consensus” is not how Wikipedia works, yet this argument can be found below; If consensus finds that he is a unicorn, can we add that in? Hyperbole aside; This should not be in the lede, at the very minimum. Precedent alone dictates that we should mention Kennedy’s core identity and title(s)/position(s), not a wildly subjective allegation.MWFwiki (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::He was declared a conspiracy theory via consensus via the previous RFC. This article will still call him a conspiracy theorist regardless of the outcome, just that if the opposing party wins out, it will be moved to another part of the article, not removed. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::MOS:LEADSENTENCE and WP:BLP overrule any “declarations” via consensus. And, again, if we “declare” him to be a unicorn, does that mean we can call him that? I’m aware that this discussion is pertaining to the lead. I still oppose its inclusion. MWFwiki (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::If we declare it via consensus then yes. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, it doesn't, lol. Again; MOS:LEADSENTENCE and WP:BLP overrule any “declarations” via consensus. You are seriously contending that "consensus" may be written as factual information? Consensus only matters when it comes to (properly) source-able information, and the consensus must be executed within Wikipedia Policy. Calling him a "unicorn" violates both, regardless of what consensus achieves. Consensus does not overrule Wikipedia Policy. MWFwiki (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Consensus is literally how Wikipedia works... it is, and I quote WP:CON, "Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision-making."

::::::Your interpretation of policy never overrules consensus. isa.p (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|...dictates that we should mention Kennedy’s core identity and title(s)/position(s), not a wildly subjective allegation}}. Anti-vaxer and conspiracy theorist aren't an "allegation". They have been his profession for quite some time, literally what he was hired to do as head of CHD. Thus the lede. -- M.boli (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose keeping. "Conspiracy theorist" is a pejorative term used to devalue what someone has to say. It's thrown around too much, and has no meaning. The debate over whether he is a conspiracy theorist should absolutely be discussed in its own section in the article. It's not a fact, it is an opinion and thus it should not be stated as fact. Especially not in an encyclopedia. –Aaronw1109 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::Aaron, please let it be clear. The topic of this RFC is not about whether or not RFK Jr. should be labeled a conspiracy theorist. Consensus amongst editors, for now, has agreed he is one according to reliable sources. It is whether or not conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer activists should be in the lead sentence. Please comprehend the topic of the RFC before commenting. If you wish to contest whether RFK Jr. should be called a conspirscy theorists then please make your own separate RFC after this one has concluded. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::In their defense though, arguing that this language is not appropriate anywhere would also be an argument for removing it from the first sentence. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::It technically is but it still misunderstands the topic at hand. The OP of the RCC is not arguing whether RFK Jr. should be called a conspiracy theorist or not. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Information in the lead should be the most solid information on the subject, not contentious and debated, therefore people disagreeing with the label is a very valid argument as to why it shouldn't be in the lead. LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::People here are going beyond putting it in the lead; they're saying to remove the phrase from the article entirely despite the consensus agreeing the term should stay somewhere in the article. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose keeping. Per WP:Firstsentence, the first sentence should be factual and neutral. "Conspiracy theorist" is an opinion and should not be in the first sentence. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::Conspiracy theorist is a factual and neutral term that was chosen per consensus from reliable sources. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::@Turtletennisfogwheat it's also a pejorative but that's not the discussion here isn't it Buildershed (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Nope Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Stop bludgeoning. “Nope” is not a useful reply and you are bludgeoning the process. MWFwiki (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am trying to clarify to many of the opposers that "conspiracy theorist" is not going to be removed from the article regardless of the outcome of this RFC. Many in the oppose keeping section seem to think we're gonna remove it from the article entirely if their party wins. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Not at all. You are making an assumption. The various queries and protestations are precisely because this is in the introduction. It would attract hardly any opposition if it were just mentioned in the main article. (Try it and see.) Drsruli (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You're replying to somebody who explicitly says that he's complaining about it being in the first sentence. Drsruli (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Vaccine skeptic or something along those lines would be a better description 2600:1011:B341:703E:8194:2E10:243F:547 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::Again, that's not the topic of this RFC. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The RfC states: {{tq|You can add any suggestion you think fits and could achieve WP:Consensus here.}} Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::It's a suggestion that misunderstands the question of the RFC. It's again, not about whether or not RFK Jr, is a conspiracy theorist. He is per consensus of the previous RFC. It's whether he should be called that in the lead sentence. The article will still call him a conspiracy theorist regardless of the outcome of this RFC. Many of those who are opposing in this RFC don't understand what the OP is asking whatsoever. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::The suggestion may have been to use "vaccine skeptic" or something like that for the first sentence which I believe is related to what this RfC is about. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the very valid explanations provided by other users. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose a blatant character assassination in the first sentence --FMSky (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :{{Ping|FMSky}} undoubtedly. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I've always thought of you as anti-racist.... thus this is a position that is puzzling to me.{{cite web | title=The Anti-Vaccine Propaganda of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | website=Office for Science and Society - McGill University | date=2021-04-19 | url=https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-health-pseudoscience/anti-vaccine-propaganda-robert-f-kennedy-jr}} Moxy🍁 19:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes, I'm anti-racist (in the sense that we're all equal in human terms, even if we believe in different religions, have different skin colors, etc.), but in my opinion defining Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with these words in the first lines isn't correct (elsewhere in the lead, however, it might be correct). JacktheBrown (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Ok that makes more sense...... endorsing the previous comment about "character assassination" I thought you meant the terms shouldn't be here at all. Moxy🍁 19:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Moxy I'm extremely confused by this comment of yours... Are you suggesting that Jack is being racist for thinking it's unfair to word the first sentence this way? What does any of this have to do with racism? Isn't that a violation of WP:no personal attacks? And even if that did make you racist somehow, you earlier supported having it removed from the first sentence when you supported Time's first proposal which I believe didn't contain it there, wouldn't that make you racist by your own admission if what you said was true?Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I was pretty confused too. He's just saying he doesnt think its appropriate to label RFK a conspiracy therorist - FMSky (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Simply thinking uninformed...... After you've been here for a while you realize that many people have talk to each other over years and sometimes question what's going on.... for clarification. But thanks for jumping in again. Moxy🍁 19:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :This is sadly the case. The same reason Trump's page does not include "felon" in the lead. Whether it is true or not, the point of Wikipedia is not to shape a narrative or agendas - especially in the lead. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 04:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Are you sure your saying the right thing??? Do you mean the first sentence? He was found guilty of falsifying business records in 2024, making him the first U.S. president convicted of a felony. Moxy🍁 17:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose the term "conspiracy theorist" is simply not neutral and has only been added to skew the perspective on his character in recent years. Despite the claim that RFK Jr was a vocal conspiracy theorist since 2005, the first edit with this wording can be dated as recently as December 2021 (only 3 years ago). Addintionally, some (not all) notable conspiracy theorists don't have "conspiracy theorist" in the title. Coretta Scott King was a prominent conspiracy theorist regarding the murder of her husband but the lead section of her page fails to note this fact. The entire article doesn't even describe her as a conspiracy theorist, just that had a "belief in a conspiracy" carrying out MLK's murder. If believing in a conspiracy theory revolving around the murder of the man you married isn't even notable to make it onto the page, then what makes RFK so special? Both equally have successfully sued people over their beliefs in conspiracy theories. This is as dumb as when OJ Simpson's page referred to him as a "felon" in the main section, which despite being the main thing he is remembered for in the modern generation, is not very neutral and was definitely only included because the editor wanted OJ Simpson to look bad for his alleged involvement in the murder of his ex-wife. I don't see how "felon" and "conspiracy theorist" would ever be worth mentioning in the first sentence because they're both much of the same thing in regards of being irrelevant characteristics surrounding controversial individuals. MountainJew6150 (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Conspiracy theorist is a neutral term and was gathered via consensus of the previous RFC. It will not be removed. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Much like many in the oppose section, MountainJew6150 is a partisan editor with an affinity of a mainly right-wing slant. It is clear that they oppose it because it disagrees with their political beliefs. Ignore them. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{U|Turtletennisfogwheat}} - this comment was unnecessary and not very civil, and can potentially be seen as a personal attack, would you mind striking it. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::"{{tq|...and can potentially be seen as a personal attack}}"; it's a (mass) personal attack, not "potentially". JacktheBrown (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::What? Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Ad hominem attack. Drsruli (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Well said. Drsruli (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Both RFK Jr. and Trump are considered a conspiracy theorist and a felon per reliable sources. Only reason Trump isn't called a felon in the lead paragraph is because he's known for more notable things than his felony. Meanwhile, RFK Jr, per consensus, is known most for being an anti-vax conspiracy theorist. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::He is not MOST known for that. Drsruli (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Yes, he, is Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::No, he is not. Drsruli (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Yes he is. All the reliable sources point to him being one and he was deemed so by consensus. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Nothing dated within the past month. Drsruli (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:I think it should be objective. He is a lawyer and current cabinet member. Even Adolph Hitler's first sentence is tame compared to RFK Jr. 174.108.31.102 (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is alive and in office, so his detractors have every interest in character assassination (in the first lines of the lead). JacktheBrown (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::It is objective. Also Hitler's notable for being a dictator the same way RFK Jr is notable for being a conspiracy theorist. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Do not include “anti-vaccine activist” or “conspiracy theorist” in the first sentence. The lead should focus on RFK Jr.’s primary notability, which is not defined by his political positions. Including such labels in the opening sentence lacks clear policy justification and risks undue weight and POV pushing. Nemov (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• :{{+1}}. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The first sentence is for succinct descriptions of why the person is notable. Contentious labels such as these should be removed as undue, and editors who add them to articles should have their edits scrutinized for broader patterns of POV pushing. With that said, I hope the closer WP:DISCARDs any "this is left-wing political bias" comments in the oppose section here. People who say we should gloss over his conspiracy theories entirely throughout the article should also be scrutinized for their POV pushing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• No,this has no factual basis, no citation and is bias opinion. It has no place on Wikipedia. VoiceofreasonCSH (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• :It was added based on consensus Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aside from the arguments above, I would propose that no one should ever be labelled a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia, and especially never in the article lead. We can always discuss whether someone has supported one or other position that consensus deems a "conspiracy theory", and if it is the case then it is fine for the article to say that "X has supported conspiracy theory Y". But we should never generalize this to describe the person as a "conspiracy theorist" as if that were a permanent state or his/her profession. --Hispalois (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• :The term "conspiracy theorist" will remain in the article. This RFC will simply debate whether it should be in the in the first sentence or just another part of the article. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Again, he explicitly says that he's referring to the article lede.
• ::Dude, you're on a crusade. Drsruli (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Are you familiar with WP:BLUDGEON? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|we should never ... describe the person as a "conspiracy theorist" as if that were ... his/her profession}}. Anti-vax and conspiracy theorist have been Jr.'s actual profession for about two decades. Most of his prodigious work output has been anti-vax and conspiracy theories: books, movies, law suits, public appearances, etc. He was employed by an anti-vax and conspiracy organization. His work history is congruent with what reliable sources describe and ID him as. -- 00:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC) M.boli (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per the many solid arguments above. ~ HAL333 18:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per the many solid arguments above. Also numerous requests and arguments in the past year or so, present in the archives. This is a perennial topic on this page and the rationale for keeping the wording becomes weaker daily. ALSO, it sounds unprofessional, judgmental, and language unbecoming an encyclopedia. It makes Wikipedia sound like it was written by kooks, and detracts from our credibility. It looks and sounds bad, and this is why hundreds of readers have stopped on this page in the past couple years to protest. (They couldn't believe their eyes.) There's a way to say something, and present it, without daring people to disbelieve you. Drsruli (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• :The term "conspiracy theorist" is not going to be removed regardless of the outcome. Just moved somewhere else in the article. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::That will be an improvement. Leading with crazy talk is much worse than adding it in incidentally down the line. Drsruli (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:No 2601:2C3:C585:B060:4821:310:6DB8:F937 (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:CONTENTIOUS, MOS:LEADCLUTTER, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:UNDUE

:Most reliable sources, including those used in the article sourcing the conspiracy theories, do not give him that label.

:A quick survey shows this is how RFK Jr is introduced in reliable sources.

:Associated Press: [https://apnews.com/article/rfk-trump-health-secretary-vote-5dbefeef0537dc241e6fb33b8f2a748b Kennedy, 71, whose name and family tragedies have put him in the national spotlight since he was a child]

:USA Today: [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/15/rfk-jr-health-secretary-policy-positions/76329064007/ Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent anti-vaccine activist]

:CNN: [https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/09/politics/rfk-jr-parastic-worm-brain/index.html Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr]

:Forbes: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2025/02/13/rfk-jrs-health-secretary-confirmation-live-updates-senate-confirms-trumps-pick-mcconnell-votes-no/ The son of late Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, Kennedy is a longtime environmental lawyer and activist]

:Reuters: [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rfk-jr-abortion-vaccines-housing-foreign-policy-2024-03-20/ Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a scion of the famed Kennedy family...A long-time environmental activist and anti-vaccine advocate]

:BBC: [https://www.irishcentral.com/news/robert-f-kennedy-jr-dr-fauci-covid19-vaccine The 69-year-old is the son of assassinated Senator Robert F Kennedy and nephew of President John F Kennedy.]

:From the articles sourcing the conspiracy stuff:

:NYT: [https://web.archive.org/web/20220228163440/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/26/us/robert-kennedy-covid-vaccine.html the son and namesake of Robert F. Kennedy, the New York senator, attorney general and Democratic presidential candidate assassinated on June 5, 1968...Once a top environmental lawyer who led the charge to clean up the Hudson River in New York, the third eldest child of Robert and Ethel Kennedy]

:NPR: [https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/06/08/1004214189/anti-vaccine-film-targeted-to-black-americans-spreads-false-information Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the founder of Children's Health Defense. (He's the son of the former U.S. Attorney General Robert "Bobby" Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.)]

:NBC [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/covid-s-devastation-black-community-used-marketing-new-anti-vaxxer-n1260724 anti-vaccination activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr]

:CNN [https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/15/politics/rfk-jr-covid-jewish-groups/index.html Democratic presidential contender Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]

:Irish Central: [https://www.irishcentral.com/news/robert-f-kennedy-jr-dr-fauci-covid19-vaccine Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of Robert and nephew of John F. Kennedy]

:I've only seen 2 sources in the article that label him a "conspiracy theorist" (a term he rejects). And both are in relation to vaccines/COVID, so WP:REDUNDANCY may also need to be considered here since we already have "anti-vaccine activist" (which is almost always fueled by conspiracy theories) in the first sentence.

:I've seen arguments in favor following from WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, but this RfC isn't about the lead, it's specifically about the first sentence of the lead, which in its current state is cluttered, undue, and arguably redundant.159.242.213.173 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Light Oppose: Like Trump, RFK Jr. is a supporter of conspiracy theories, but other exploits and aspects of him remain more defining than his skepticism-leading-to-baseless-nonsense. Like, the word "conspiracy theorist" describes 80% of non-democratic politicians in the US, so I'd argue about the dueness of listing something that is so typical of most politicians in his walk of life. BarntToust 00:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Would love to see a source for this point of view very interested. Moxy🍁 00:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Medical Racism: the New Apartheid 2021 film. The Real Anthony Fauci 2021 book and 2022 film. "The Wuhan Cover-Up" 2023 book. Letter to Liberals: Censoship and COVID... 2022 book. Framed conspiracy theory about RFK's assassination 2016 book. Suit against FCC to stop 5G cell phones, alleging conspiracy (incl Bill Gates) to hide health effects: lawsuit filed 2020.
• :{{ping|BarntToust}} And that's not the half of it.
• :RFK Jr. is described as a conspiracy theorist because that is what he does for a living.. It isn't just "supporter of conspiracy theories". Writing a new conspiracy theory book every year isn't "typical of most politicians". Manufacturing and promoting conspiracy theories has been his job for quite a while. -- M.boli (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::RFK is much more known for abusing animals, having a brain worm-ridden mind, being a Trump ally, being a member of a mostly deceased family, etc., and those aspects are a fair bit more identifying of him than terming of conspiracies. in fact, a third-paragraph speel about all his contributions to loony-dom. BarntToust 11:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and WP:CONTENTIOUS. For the lead this is too controversial and not representative of his notability. "Supporter of conspiracy theories" is appropriate for the article, but not the lead. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Being a conspiracy theorist is his notability, per the sources. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Being a son/nephew of assassinated Kennedy's is his notability by far far more sources, but somehow that doesn't make it in the first sentence because it doesn't support the agenda of many editors.159.242.213.173 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Agree. Drsruli (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:LEADCLUTTER. This overstuffs the lead way too much. If the label is to be included, it is better-placed elsewhere.Dakotacoda (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. RFK is HHS secretary – he is no longer just an outsider promoting conspiracy theories, so the fact he has promoted conspiracy theories is no longer his main identity. The first sentence IMO should summarize the specific career roles he has had (which would be long enough) and support for conspiracy theories can be discussed in another sentence. JSwift49 02:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Kennedy is notable first and foremost as the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the second Trump administration, and the article should lead off with that. His controversial views (and the correctness or incorrectness of those views is not at issue here) are an important part of his character and should be mentioned, but not in the first sentence. This is the way the articles on, e.g., Ben Carson and Betsy DeVos are constructed. Jbt89 (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. RFK Jr is not anti vax or a conspiracy theorist, but even pushing that aside. Calling him one is clearly not neutral in anyway. IDefendDonaldandMAGA (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC) — IDefendDonaldandMAGA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}
• :... says "I Defend Donald and MAGA". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• :That username and your edit history having a single purpose says enough about how much your opinion will be taken into account. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Sock strike, per CU. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT 204.126.240.6 (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:No, its at best subjective rhetoric and at worst completely inaccurate.

:It's like saying a consumer advocacy group is against consumer products. They are not. They just want to make sure they're tested and safe. 132.147.145.223 (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:LEADCLUTTER and WP:BLP, which tell us to stick to the most relevant and least inflammatory language in our lead. Even if reliable sources use this language to describe Kennedy, the first sentence is not the place to insert the claim in WP:WIKIVOICE. Penguino35 (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:Could you elaborate? Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:Absolutely not. He has said numerous times he is not anti-vax. There is no way he is a conspiracy theorist, he has shared provable facts about Covid. 68.203.79.179 (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC) — 68.203.79.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}

:No 47.39.33.137 (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per it not being WP:NPOV. Calling him a conspiracy theorist and anti vaccine is hurtful to him, especially when you consider most people read the heading and thats it. If they want to find more, they need to do a deep dive and find sources. DotesConks (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• :We don't take into account how the subject would feel about the article itself. So it's not a valid argument to say "it's hurtful to him" Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Turtletennisfogwheat WP:BLP. DotesConks (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::I searched that page for "hurt", it does not contain it. Can you be more specific about which part of that page you believe supports your position? --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::@Hob Gadling WP:BLPSTYLE. It generally isn't a good idea to put that in the lead section as it can harm RFK Jr. The point I was trying to make is just that it should be put into the body instead of the lead. DotesConks (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Again, this encyclopedia does not care about what the subject would feel. Should we tweak the page for Dick Cheney so that it doesn't hurt his feelings? Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@Turtletennisfogwheat Or maybe you can stop bludgeoning this entire RFC. To call him a conspiracy theorist and anti vaccine is damaging when people look at him. People when they want a general overview of someones life will often look towards Wikipedia. A general overview of a persons life is everything basic about them, a name,. birth date, if they are dead or not, parents, citizenship and thats about it. DotesConks (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Wikipedia does not care about a subject's feelings. It's part of the rules. This article is not supposed to cowtow to what the subject itself would personally think of the article. I am not bludgeoning, I am clarifying the rules. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::@Turtletennisfogwheat Firstly, you are not clarifying anything. Most of what you said is wrong and I highly suggest you read up on WP:BLP before you start to push an agenda and bludgeon a conversation. Secondly, you are not a superhero theres no need to pretend that you are the police and make sure everyones in line. Third, Wikipedia DOES care, see the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident that caused BLP policy to be created. Look, I am a staunch RFK Jr supporter hence why I even take the time to respond to such comments. I highly suggest you just move on instead of feeling the need to be a watchdog over this thread. DotesConks (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::That incident and the BLP policy existing doesn't mean we have the make the article to censor what RFK Jr. very clearly is via reliable sources and it definitely doesn't mean we have to make the page about worshipping RFK Jr. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::And for the last time, I'm already subscribed to the thread. Please stop pinging me. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::: DotesConks, you need to drop the aggressive tone and ownership attitude. Coming from a newbie, it's especially grating on the nerves. We do not write hagiographies here. You need to look at WP:PUBLICFIGURE. It offers far less protection to the subject than is offered by BLP to ordinary people. The lead should mention what he is known for, and there is plenty of content in the body to justify mentioning this in the lead. Whether it should be the first sentence or not is up for debate here, but there are no policy-based grounds for opposing mention or attempting to shelter and coddle Kennedy, a man whose actions, ideas, and policies are responsible for many deaths, especially of children. He will get no mercy or whitewashing here. We will write what RS say about him and his dangerous ideas. Wikipedia is not censored or whitewashed.
• :::::::::: We do not coddle advocates of fringe theories and dangerous practices. Instead, we prominently mention their faults in the lead. That's how it's done here. If you continue to get pushy and try to push Turtletennisfogwheat and other editors away from this article about your hero, then you may well get more than your current block. A full topic ban from this and related topics may be appropriate. Learn to get along with others, or you will be the one who gets pushed away. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Why would one care if it's damaging to him or not? I agree it doesn't belong in the very first sentence (which is all this rather stale discussion is about) - but a conspiracy-theorist with blood on his hands doesn't preserve get anonymity or right to forget. What is that his reckless disregard for public health and life have to do with any of our policies? We've got so many sources, right, left, and centre, that document his pushing his nutty anti-vaccine theories, many of which are completely in contradiction to every peer-reviewed journal article out there. It's not like it's simply a belief that he mentioned once or twice. He was literally a spokesperson for his "cause". Nfitz (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Don't bother arguing with him anymore, he won't change his mind. He's admitted he's a staunch RFK Jr. supporter and aims to make the page a glaze piece of Kennedy. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::: I have given him some advice and a warning. A topic ban may be necessary. Such ownership behavior will not be tolerated. Fans of Kennedy don't get to tell others to stay away from the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I have a watchlist, I do not need pinging. And your reasoning is vacuous: you cannot wave a Wikipedia rule page around to support something it does not say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose His fringe and deadly anti-vaxxing conspiracy theories are, and certainly have their place in the lead. But it's not needed in the very first sentence. Personally, I'd put it in the second sentence - as outside his local area, he's certainly most known for his contribution to the deadly measles epidemic. I don't see why it wouldn't be in the first paragraph. Nfitz (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Why not? It's why he got the job. For MAGA, vaccines are part of the deep state, guilty of Lèse-majesté for making Trump look bad by causing him to make endless unforced errors.
• :I mean, it literally is why he got the job. By saying that the COVID vaccine is the most deadly in human history (which is, objectively, utter nonsense), he was pitching to a man whose sense of grievance is his defining characteristic. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• No I don’t think so. He’s actually right about a lot of things that America has gotten quite wrong the past 20-30 years especially. 2600:387:15:4112:0:0:0:C (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:: No, not really, especially on those two points. He's so wrong it's literally killing people, mostly children. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Reliable sources generally usse person-first rather than identity-first language. So for example they would refer to a person of color rather than a colored person. In this case we would say he is a person who advocates conspiracy theories rather than that he is a conspiracy theorist. Of course calling RFK Jr is fine in polemical writing intended to disparage him. But news articles do not usually do that. TFD (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :But nobody says "person who promotes conspiracy theories". People like David Icke, Bart Sibrel, RFK Jr., and the rest are described as conspiracy theorists by reliable sources because that is the term of art for people who promote conspiracy theories. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I gave this some thought. Firstly, a "conspiracy theorist" is not a profession nor an occupation (while "anti-vaccine activist" indicates that the said person is specifically a vocal advocate of anti-vaccination causes, the terminology "conspiracy theorist" can be vaguely applied to anyone who has advocated for a theory which has been termed a conspiracy by RS). Figures who have been identified as "conspiracy theorists" on the first sentence in the enwiki are figures who are known exclusively for their advocacy of a specific conspiracy theory (such as Mark Steele and Cathy O'Brien). Secondly, since a large portion of the conspiracy theories RFK Jr. has proposed have been related to the issue of American vaccination policy (and is what I believe his conspiracy theories are most known for), I find the label "anti-vaccine activist" sufficient enough to give a general idea of Kennedy's beliefs to someone who is oblivious of him. And lastly, the term itself is too contentious. The term conspiracy theory {{tq|generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence}}. While I agree with the overwhelming number of RS that Kennedy's claims are in fact based in prejudice, emotional conviction, and insufficient evidence, for the sake of avoiding unnecessary edit warring and out-wiki controversy, I think deleting the term from the first sentence would be a net benefit to the article in general. 00101984hjw (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. He is primarily known as an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist. I would also ask for a procedural close, as the options presented below appear as a pretty classic case of WP:BLUDGEONING. You are not offering compromise, you are flooding the zone to create false balance. Most editors here support the current wording, yet only two of the "options" retain it. Your pattern of behavior on some of your RfCs is pretty troubling too. You make an edit, it gets reverted, then you make an RfC and bludgeon editors. My advice would be to make the RfC FIRST, then let the discussion play out. You'll find less hostility this way. Carlp941 (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't agree that every opposing argument is arbitrary meant to delay the process -- I think some of them are strong or at least decent.
• :As for what most editors support, I agree that the majority is tilting towards keeping it this way, but that doesn't automatically mean that it should be closed, or at least not yet.
• :If you want a clearer result process, perhaps we could count everyone's votes (with strong/weak support/oppose earning more or less points respectively) and we can implement whoever's side gets more points after a set amount of time. Would that be a good idea?
• :Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Taking your reply in good faith, I think you're feeling that every particular argument needs a counter argument. It doesn't. Highly reccomend rereading WP:RfC for how to form these discussions in the future. Opening RfC on recently closed discussions is likely to annoy. Neutrality and narrowness are pretty key, as well.
• ::I wouldn't object to vote counting here, but maybe we should get a neutral third party to come take a look. Carlp941 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Got it; what's the best way to find a neutral third party in a timely manner? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• :As a neutral third party, a less-biased phrasing could be something like "some people (cite who and corresponding sources) view him as anti-vaccine despite him having vaccinated all of his kids, and repeatedly recommending the public to be vaccinated (cite sources)." As it is now, this is objectively not neutral. Also, I recommend bringing up Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, especially since he says things like "the most effective way to prevent the spread of measles is the MMR vaccine". TravelingCatScientist (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::That would be far removed from what reliable sources say about him. His kids were vaccinated before he started his antivax campaign, and a few lip-service statements do not outweigh decades of lies. He did not even say he wants to prevent the spread of measles. He likes measles, so the statement about MMR is not a recommendation. See [https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-robert-f-kennedy-jr-says-measles-infection-may-have-benefits/21920354/]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Your link doesn't say "He likes measles". Instead, he says "I would never advise somebody to get sick". Additionally your article admits: "Health experts said there’s no question that natural immunity from measles can provide long-lasting defense against future measles infections". It's very important for both you and Wikipedia to acknowledge the difference between objectivity and stretching the truth.
• :::It's not a few "lip-service statements" either. As an example, in his book Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak, he is a proponent of vaccines, but just pushes for removal of ingredients like mercury. In 1998, The FDA's CBER agreed that the amounts of mercury in vaccine exceeded standards established by the EPA. There are review articles suggesting Mercury is at least a [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27473827/ risk factor for ASD][https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jnc.16076 (+another article)] , but there are other research articles that suggest otherwise and that the levels are safe. All RFK Jr is advocating for is that more research needs to be done.
• :::When people say "reliable sources", you have to quantify reliability with respect to metrics like objectivity/bias and whether they're more important than first-hand accounts (his body of work) and the actions he's taken (like vaccinating his family, recommending vaccines, etc.).
• :::In other words, a pro-vaccine anti-vaxxer is contradictory. A Wikipedia article shouldn't introduce someone with one interpretation of a contradiction. TravelingCatScientist (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{tq|your article admits: "Health experts said there’s no question that natural immunity from measles can provide long-lasting defense against future measles infections"}} Problem is, measles does not always give you natural immunity: It either gives you immunity or death. Vaccination only gives you immunity. According to Kennedy, it can also give you autism, but that has been extensively tested, and the vaccine definitely doesn't give you autism. But Kennedy, who does not believe what scientists say but instead believes what the fraudster Andrew Wakefield says, does not like that result, and therefore he has engaged Mark Geier's son David, who is not a scientist and not a doctor but is an antivax activist, to make a study that gives the result Kennedy wants. [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/science-based-satire-a-sneak-preview-of-rfk-jr-s-vaccine-autism-study/ Here] is a sneak preview of that study.
• ::::You cannot just pick some sentence you found somewhere and assume that you can conclude from it what the article should say. Read WP:CIR.
• ::::The problem with your "neutral third party" and "less-biased" attitude is: Those who have no clue can be either on Kennedy's side or against him or neutral. But everybody who has a clue about the subject of vaccines knows that Kennedy is full of shit. That is why we let reliable sources decide. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support 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)

::1) Don't you think there's still exceptions to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, especially since it's an essay, and that they might apply here? (I added the link because I saw it mentioned and I wanted that section to be more neutral rather than based on my own opinions).

::2) {{tq|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.}} Perhaps, but what about the Elon Musk analogy?

::Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support WP:SNOW we have already established a consensus that he is a conspiracy theorist, and that fact is backed by numerous RS. The fact that he has a new job has no bearing whatsoever on that, it is not even relevant.Jeppiz (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support as per Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./FAQ and MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE and MOS:OPENPARABIO {{green|"The main reason the person is notable "}} ...what academic institutions outside US teach about him = {{cite web|author=Jonathan Jarry | title=The Anti-Vaccine Propaganda of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | publisher =McGill University -Office for Science and Society | date=2021-04-19 | url=https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-health-pseudoscience/anti-vaccine-propaganda-robert-f-kennedy-jr|quote=Take-home message:Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is one of the main activists of the modern anti-vaccination movement.....}} Moxy🍁 06:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• :This publishment was before his new role in the cabinet, so that may skew things. Also, mention of his conspiracy theories are not in the first sentence, and are only mentioned once in the first paragraph when quoting from another source. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::WP:NOTTEMPORARY Moxy🍁 17:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::I'm not sure whether you read the second paragraph of that guideline:
• :::{{tq|While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article.}}
• :::Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. That other articles handle similar situations differently is not a reason to change this article. Unlike the law, Wikipedia does not use precedence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree, the near consensus on the other article should not be the sole reason for our decision of this article. I did bring other arguments for this article though. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I suggest you review Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. Moxy🍁 06:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::I responded to this here. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I don't have to repeat the refutations already done by other editors. It would clutter this page even more. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support it's well documented by reliable sources, and a new job doesn't change that he mainly know as an anti-vax conspiracy theorists. It's just that now he is an anti-vax conspiracy theorists who is currently also the US health secretary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support It is even more notable that a lifelong committed anti-vaccine advocate and conspiracy theorist has this position, not less.DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Nothing changed since the last consensus except he got a bigger platform. RFK Jr kept engaging in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories during his confirmation hearing.[https://apnews.com/article/rfk-jr-vaccine-trump-science-autism-9b99621b01f11b7f0bdc81e5a0b82d2b] Calling him "anti-vaccine" is neutral and it is DUE for the lead sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Retain current wording - We've already had an RfC on this, nothing significant has changed regarding the subject since then. Just another random "new" user who misuses WP:NPOV to rid an article of criticism. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I strongly disagree. I think his new position potentially raises the bar entirely for what should be on the first sentence. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::What a person is called on Wikipedia is determined by reliable sources. There's no special exceptions for politicians. Cortador (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes, however, that does not mean that everything notable with RS goes in the first sentence. (If you don't believe me, look at MOS:FIRST, which says {{tq|Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject.}}) Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::So do you agree that the argument you used as your reasoning to start this RfC is faulty? Cortador (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I don't understand, what are you saying is wrong with this RfC? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Do you agree that what a person is called on Wikipedia is determined by reliable sources, with no special exceptions for politicians? Cortador (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Just because something is sourcable doesn't mean it should be in the leadsentence of someone's biography --FMSky (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::{{+1}}. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Unless consensus determines it should be. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Exactly, which is why I made this RfC: to see whether the consensus determines it should be this way. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Well thank you then for making this RfC, because there is a strong consensus it should be this way, and in the future, we can point to this RfC you started to show the strong consensus. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::You're welcome! But I wouldn't recommend a speedy close (or at least not at this point) as it's a majority but not an overwhelming one. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::Then by all means, let's keep it open until we do have an overwhelming one, so we don't have to go through this nonsense again. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Can you answer my question? Cortador (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::(For those accusing of WP:bludgeoning, the administrator said it's okay to answer questions. If it's not or I made some other mistake, please let me know and I'll correct it.)
• :::::::Yes, of course, as long as you keep in mind that it's one piece of the puzzle when deciding what to include and where, and there's more to keep in mind than just RS, such as WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CONTENTIOUS.
• :::::::Let me know if you need anything else, although it may be preferred you bring other questions / concerns some place else due to the bludgeoning accusations.
• :::::::Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I think the RfC is flawed. It should have been seperate RfC for each term. Even though these terms have some overlap, they are very different in terms of objectiveness and sourcing. Many of the Supporting arguments are only for "anti-vaccine activist", but their vote is going towards the more ambiguous, contentious, and relatively poorly-sourced "conspiracy theorist" that makes WP look like a joke. We could easily get a consensus for "anti-vaccine activist" only which covers much of the same ground.159.242.213.173 (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support The wording is accurate, as covered in WP:RS. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I came here from the RfC notice, and the way this RfC is formatted and presented does not strike me as neutral. The wording is reliably sourced, and DUE for the first sentence, and removing it would render the page a violation of NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Could you clarify the problem with the RfC formatting? I tried to keep my argument and the facts separate. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::For starters, putting a section for oppose before, instead of after, the section for support is unusual, and might suggest a preference for oppose. Also, you make statements in the opening material about kinds of arguments to avoid, that, despite being reasonable on the surface, come across as advocating in favor of some ways of approaching the question, over other valid ways. Plus, it sounds like this RfC was opened very soon after another was closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Thanks for getting back to me. Let me address your concerns:
• :::1) I'm not the one who added the "support" and "oppose" sections the way they are, but I did write the oppose comment first, and my original plan was to have it not categorized, and everyone's !votes are a response to the RfC, not in a separate section, but in chronological order.
• :::2) The arguments that I listed to avoid are based on things which I saw many make but I think think most people can agree is not related or a fallacy, and / or violates wikipedia guidelines/policies. If there's anything on there that you think is a mistake or not neutral, feel free to let me know.
• :::3) Are you talking about the previous RfC for this? I'm pretty sure that one was done years ago, and long before he got his new position.
• :::Thank you once again.
• :::Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :How can you claim "conspiracy theorist" is DUE for the first sentence when the vast majority of sources do not call him that?159.242.213.173 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Google him. The WP result stands alone as the only single source that calls him a "conspiracy theorist". The "anti-vaccine activist" is fine, but the "conspiracy theorist" part isn't even remotely close to being DUE.159.242.213.173 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::It it rather east to do so, when the assertion you are making is untruthful. Zaathras (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::My comment was in regards to the first page of results, context I had meant to include. Obviously I'm not saying WP is the only source in the world that labels him that. Given the intended context, it's 100% truthful. But feel free to disprove my claim with a counter-example.159.242.213.173 (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Google results depend on your Google history. Your first page is different from everybody else's first page.
• ::::Regardless, this is not how such decisions are made on Wikipedia. See WP:GOOGLECHECK to find out what a search test can do, and what it can't. Especially the "cannot" part. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Decisions are made with evidence. Google is a useful tool to search for evidence. At the end of the day, the burden is on those supporting the label to show that it is DUE in the first sentence. 159.242.213.173 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::: No, a lead is based ONLY on the content in the body of the article. We have a rather large section dealing with this topic, and since it's such an important part of his image, activities, and the very reason he got his current position, it deserves mention in the lead, preferably in the first sentence. The current version is just fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Keep your OR to yourself. Nobody cares why you think he got the position or what you "prefer" in the first sentence. What matters is what's DUE for the first sentence, which must be neutral and reflect the balance of reliable sources not necessarily the body of the article. If you want "conspiracy theorist" in the lead, put it somewhere besides the first sentence where it will cause less edit warring and controversy.159.242.213.173 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::That is not OR. And "where it will cause less edit warring and controversy" in this context sounds like "Nice article you got there. Shame if something happened to it". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::This is not a productive response. Please give an argument for why this is DUE for the first sentence.159.242.213.173 (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::If refuting bad reasoning is not a productive response and therefore not allowed, bad reasoning stays unrefuted and is allowed to pretend to be valid. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Please give an argument for why it is DUE for the first sentence.159.242.213.173 (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::Stop being silly. There are enough such arguments in other parts of this thread. This part of the thread is about some items of bad reasoning and their refutation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::: Tryptofish's reasoning isn't necessarily bad. It was never given. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#c-159.242.213.173-20250326222800-Tryptofish-20250215010700 Which is why I asked].159.242.213.173 (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::Not a reason to ask me to give "an argument for why this is DUE for the first sentence" just because I happened to refute your bad reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::That's not the reason I asked you to give an argument for the DUEness of "conspiracy theorist". I asked you because you support its inclusion in the first sentence when it's clearly not DUE. And it's become even less due since it was moved ahead of the far better sourced "anti-vaccine activist". I'd love to discuss what you think you refuted, but this is not a FORUM, so please stick to the topic of RfC. If you don't have an argument for why it is DUE (which I'm guessing you don't) just admit that, don't respond, or explain why DUEness doesn't matter here.159.242.213.173 (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. At bare minimum, it needs to be in the 2nd sentence. This is entirely correct: "it clearly isn't yet true that this new role is what he's most notable for". In fact, him being a pseudoscience nutter is {{em|why}} (along with Kennedy political connections) he was picked by Trump for his kakistocracy. The two things are intimately bound together, so there is no way in hell that we're going to censor his quackery out of (or out of prominence in) the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Isn't saying he was picked because of his anti-vaccination and conspiracy theories a bit speculative? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/14/trump-administration-rfk Read me] Moxy🍁 05:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Forgive me if I misread, but I'm trying to figure out which part of the article specifically you're talking about. I figured 2 potential options, but if you were talking about another please let me know:
• :::Are you talking about where it says he's known for his anti-vaccination and conspiracy theories? If so, just because he's known for it in general doesn't mean it's the reason Trump picked him.
• ::: - (side note: this is technically the second sentence of the article since the first is the title which is about him getting picked for his position)
• :::Or are you talking about where Trump praises his views on vaccines? While it shows it played a role in his pick, as lots of things did, it doesn't prove it was the sole or even main reason for his pick.
• :::Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Per the prior RFC on removing these terms, this is pretty much the same situation. Also strange that it's always his anti-vaccine career that people want to remove, not author or environmental lawyer, when he is clearly most notable for his anti-vaccine activism. Cannolis (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I think reason 2) from my initial opposition argument addresses your point about his other terms, as that argument doesn't apply for environmental lawyer and author. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support, but without strong feelings. Responding to an alert: I have nothing against the characterisation, irrespective of his appointment, whether to secretary or to papacy, and whether in the opening sentence or not; WP's ethical function does not include that of lickspittle to celebrities. However, there is some merit to the principle of maintaining some informal degree of consistency between articles. But if it were decided that we should indeed move the characterisation further down, I would not move it very far. JonRichfield (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support for inclusion of anti-vaccination activist, weaker support for conspiracy theorist. He is ultimately most notable in this day and age for his career as an anti-vaccine activist, with the conspiracy theory aspect kinda coming under this umbrella and being less of a factor in defining notability. Either way, removal of the anti-vaccine activist descriptor when it's been what he's doing most notably for the last few years would not be a good idea. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::Rhododendrites's comments below sum up my feelings pretty well. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support per supporting editors above. Carlstak (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Unless Jr. achieves something even more notorious, it is pretty clear his obituary will lead with Anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services. -- M.boli (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, and this makes no sense to me → {{tq|the "bar" for what goes in the first sentence should be raised}}. If anything, the "bar" for what goes in the first sentence has been overwhelmingly exceeded with his confirmation as HHS secretary, because he is now more notable than ever for being an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support His anti-vaccine and conspiracy theorist views make up a significant amount of his article and the news coverage of him going back decades. The lede is meant to reflect and summarize the rest of the article. Trying to push down mention of those stances does not seem appropriate. Especially when several of the opposers above seem to be openly advocating for removing all information about said views, betraying their POV stances on the subject matter. Silverseren^C 18:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has built his public reputation and persona largely on promoting conspiracy theories and by being one of the leading anti-vaccine activists in the entire world; these are defining aspects of his public persona and what he has built his identity and career around. He has repeatedly pushed unfounded claims about vaccines causing autism, despite overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary. His organization, Children’s Health Defense, is one of the most influential anti-vaccine groups, responsible for spreading fear and misinformation that have undermined public health efforts. Additionally, Kennedy has promoted various conspiracy theories, including unfounded allegations about COVID-19, 5G technology, HIV/AIDS denialism, and the assassination of his uncle. His repeated endorsement of such claims is not incidental but central to his activism and political messaging. Given that Wikipedia's lead sentence is meant to succinctly summarize the most notable and defining characteristics of a person, omitting these descriptors would fail to accurately inform readers about the nature of his public influence! Summerfell1978 (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support retention of the current wording in the lead paragraph as an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist. Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the article's content heavily emphasizes his conspiracism over his new role as Secretary of Health, indicating his primary notability remains in his controversial views. Numerous reliable sources (RS) corroborate his identity as a conspiracy theorist, and this should be reflected in the lead sentence as per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE and MOS:OPENPARABIO. Moreover, Kennedy's health conspiracies are directly relevant to his new role in health policy. Removing these descriptors would misrepresent the consensus and neutrality expected of Wikipedia articles, as established in prior RfCs. The significant coverage of his anti-vaccine stance in academic institutions and media further justifies its inclusion. Kennedy's appointment has not altered his public image; instead, it has amplified it. The lead must encapsulate his most defining characteristics, aligning with MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Therefore, retaining the mention of his anti-vaccine and conspiracy theorist identities ensures accurate and balanced representation, maintaining the integrity and verifiability of the article. JustinTrooDooo (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:Strong Support, he has been one of the most prominent (and in my view the pre-eminent) health related conspiracy theorist and anti vaccine activist in the United States since much before his association with Donald Trump. Numerous verifiable reliable sources can corroborate this. There is nothing neutral or non neutral about this fact, we are not supposed to correct perceived biases in reliable sources according to Wp:NPOV. Theofunny (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support since it is both well established and has bearing on his current role in government. If anything I believe that his appointment makes it more important that it is included. wwklnd (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :But don’t you see how that could come across as agenda-driven? {{tq|If anything, I believe his appointment makes it even more relevant to include.}} Why would that be the case if it weren’t about shaping a particular narrative in a negative light?
• :For the same reason, Trump's status as a convicted felon and having been found liable for sexual assault aren’t included in his lead. To shape public opinion right off the bat can only be described as character assassination, regardless of whether the claims are true. These are undeniably controversial topics, which is why they are covered within the article itself. So why else would they be justified in the lead unless there was an agenda behind it?
• :And "conspiracy theorist"? Really? Why is that necessary in the lead? The answer: It shouldn’t be. The same reason "felon" isn’t in Trump’s. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 04:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. No valid arguments have been brought forward why Kennedy having a new job should result in the opening no longer mentioning what he is best known for. Cortador (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. There are no valid arguments for removing the characterisation of a man whose career has largely involved promoting conspiracy theories about the environment, vaccines, various aspects of the global pandemic, and so on. His new role does not change this reality, and those advocating for such a change must acknowledge that there is consensus on the matter: RFK Jr is a conspiracy theorist. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support, and propose a yearlong moratorium against any proposals that would remove or downplay Kennedy's conspiracy theories or anti-vaccine activism in the lead. This is overwhelmingly covered in high-quality reliable sources, which treat it as uncontested fact and as one of his primary sources of notability. Contrary to the assertions of many of the people opposed to inclusion, this characterization is not contentious (in that it is not disputed by any of the highest-quality sources); people invoking WP:LABEL, which applies only to contentious statements, are misusing it. Even beyond that, LABEL is merely a part of the manual of style; the actual policy that covers this is NPOV, which states that we must {{tq|Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.}} LABEL applies only to contested opinions, which means that in order to invoke it to try and omit something that is overwhelming in reliable sources, someone must demonstrate that it is actually contested by sources of comparable weight; otherwise, for simple uncontested facts, such as these, NPOV overrules LABEL. It is unacceptable for editors to try and determine themselves what is "pejorative"; we rely on high-quality sources, not editors' personal opinions. And those sources treat this as simple, neutral, incontrovertible fact. Other arguments rely on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argumentation, which additionally ignores the fact that RFK has overwhelming amounts of high-quality sourcing establishing his conspiracy theories and anti-vax positions as uncontroversially central to his political identity and, therefore, his notability, on a level far beyond any of the other articles people have attempted to invoke above. Neutrality is not about using inoffensive wording; neutrality is about accurately and completely reflecting coverage in the best available sources, which in this case essentially universally agrees that Kennedy's anti-vaccine activism and conspiracy theories are among the most notable things about him. Even his political appointment - which would be a major source of notability in most other bios - is in his case largely treated as so notable (far beyond the degree of coverage even a cabinet secretary would usually get) primarily because of how unusual it is for an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist to be placed in such a position; his conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine activism are central context for why his appointment is so significant. A moratorium is necessary because this is well past WP:DEADHORSE; nothing relevant has changed since the numerous previous discussions (if anything, his appointment means there is far more coverage of both these aspects than before) - and the attempt to start yet another RFC before this one has even ended has made it clear that the people opposed to including this won't WP:DROPTHESTICK unless forced to do so. --Aquillion (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I also agree with the yearlong moratorium. I do think it is needed to avoid these WP:TIMESINKs. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::I'm also in support of a year-long moratorium. These RFCs aren't a productive use of time. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree - before next weeks plan User talk:Wikieditor662#Suggest we start a new RfC. Moxy🍁 05:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::With you on the moratorium bit. This is becoming tedious. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree. Me to. scope_creep^Talk 15:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::I think a moratorium is a good idea. Cortador (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::The moratorium is a good idea in my opinion. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 23:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, absent any concrete change. If, for example, David Geier's report says, against all the odds, that vaccines don't cause autism and all the boys he chemically castrated based on the ludicrous idea that thimerosal is the mechanism were in fact victims of grotesque abuse, and RFK puts his hands up and says "well, shucks, I was wrong", and winds up his grift-o-rama charity, then we could change it to former antivaxxer. But that's what it would take, right now. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support It is absolutely true. It is unfortunate that you can't say he anti-human, which he effectively is. scope_creep^Talk 09:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• :{{Ping|scope_creep}} please refrain completely from attacks on living persons; see: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::This is a talk page, not a WP:BLP. Vaccines along with the printing press, the wheel and electricity are mankinds greatest inventions. Vacciness brought humanity out of the dark ages and enabled modern civilisation to develop. So when your attacking vaccines, your effectively attacking humanity. If his views take effect it will become a worldwide problem not just a USA problem. So I think it is accurate. scope_creep^Talk 14:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|Scope creep}} so you don't make this mistake again in the future, this is the first sentence at WP:BLP: {{tq|Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.}} Emphasis in original. Also note that WP:SOAPBOX is a policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support The RS supporting the classification are extensive. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support his anti-vax conspiracizing is one of the most notable things about him. Considering this the article body gives considerable space to his being an anti-vax conspiracy theorist. The lede should accurately summarize the body. Therefore the lede should include this. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support as pretty much a textbook application of house style. The facts on the ground have not changed (he's still a conspiracy theorist); the state of the article has not changed (it still describes his activities as a conspiracy theorist). I'll also cosign Aquillion's call for a moratorium, so that we stop time-sinks before they start. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Aquillion is also right that invoking MOS:LABEL misses the mark. Words to watch are not words to avoid in all circumstances, and pointing to the Manual of Style in this case is just laundering personal opinions by means of an all-caps shortcut. XOR'easter (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Unclear why this RFC was started. Wikipedia is not censored; if someone is a conspiracy theorist, and reliable sources report that they are a conspiracy theorist and introduce them as such, then Wikipedia should describe them as a conspiracy theorist. So not LEADFOLLOWSBODY but LEADFOLLOWSSOURCES. Polygnotus (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Is very clearly who he is, and the main crux of much of his notability. no clue how long he lasts as HHS secretary, but he gained infamy and is known as the anti-vax guy. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Agreed. “anti-vaccine activist” is warranted per his life’s work, but this RfC is also about the more ambiguous, contentious, and relatively poorly sourced “conspiracy thoerist”. This is what the bulk of the opposition is for. 159.242.213.173 (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support keeping, but move his current role as Health Secretary to the start of the first sentence. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• {{sbb}} Partial support - Support anti-vaccine activist in first sentence. There's no good reason to omit this -- it's what he's been best known for over the past ten years, both with Children's Health Defense and on his own. WP:WEIGHT is determined not by titles but by proportion of coverage in reliable sources. I'm ambivalent about "conspiracy theorist", taken as completely separate from anti-vaccine activism. Certainly there are many sources which describe him as such, but many of those conspiracy theories are baked into the anti-vaccine activism descriptor. Probably fit for the lead, but not the first sentence (and formulated as something like "promoting conspiracy theories such as..."). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• My argument is similar to Rhododendrites above. Reliable sources support the claim that Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and that is what he is best known for, so it absolutely should be included. I am similarly ambivalent to the use of conspiracy theorist. As shown in above links, reliable sources support the claim that he is a conspiracy theorist with relation to vaccines; however, the double mention is a bit redundant and the first sentence is already quite wordy. Curbon7 (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Lead and first paragraph should summarize what the person is most well-known for, or their main activities. As far as I can tell, most reliable coverage of him is about his antivax activism, with lots about him spreading other conspiracy theories.VdSV9•♫ 14:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support keeping the designations, because he is described as such by many reliable sources. When he is in a high office, it is even more important that Wikipedia summarize what reliable sources say about him. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
• :You are using the wrong standard. Just because reliable sources call somebody something does not mean you can introduce them as such in the first sentence of their BLP. The first sentence represents the balance of reliable sources and most reliable sources do not refer to him as a "conspiracy theorist". 159.242.213.173 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support This is an accurate and defining description of him that has been well-established with strong sourcing. --Jpcase (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support keeping: It is an accurate characterization, and he falls outside any sort of gray area where those terms arguably might not apply. His medical conspiracy theories were the centerpiece of his presidential campaign, and his status as an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist is the main thing that makes his service as HHS Secretary especially noteworthy. Greg Boyle (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support keeping per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The article has extensive, well-sourced coverage of both his anti-vaccine campaigning and his promotion of conspiracy theories. These are clearly two of the things that have made him a notable figure. If a BLP subject does something notably negative in their lives, Wikipedia reflects that using good reliable sources. For example, if someone is notable for murder, that gets into the lead first sentence even though it's inevitably a big mark on the person's public reputation. The idea that Wikipedia should instead WP:CENSOR itself is a non-starter.OsFish (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• :We're not asking WP to censor (or remove the anti-vaccine part). We're asking that the first sentence of a BLP be written conservatively and represent the balance of reliable sources. The first sentence, as currently written, does not meet that bar regardless of how much activists would like to pretend otherwise. "Conspiracy theorist" is obviously a contentious label, which is why most reliable sources don't call RFK that. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is irrelevant as this is in reference to the first sentence and will not change the main content of the lead.159.242.213.173 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Advocates are not the ones who chose to add that to his lead. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Enough reliable sources call him a conspiracy theorist to justify it in the lead first sentence. Not every reliable source mentions that he is a lawyer either, but enough do. It's true there should be a higher bar for describing someone as a conspiracy theorist than as a lawyer, but that bar is clearly passed. I don't take kindly to being accused of editing in bad faith when all I have done is apply the same standard here as I have in other very similar cases.OsFish (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Then take lawyer out of the first sentence too. He's much more notable for being JFK/RFK's nephew/son respectively per reliable sources, which isn't even mentioned in the first sentence. So again, undue and unbalanced as currently written.159.242.213.173 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support Reliable sources call him an anti-vaxxer and a conspiracy theorist, and it's a highly important part of his notability. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 10:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
• Overwhelmingly Support This has been repeatedly debated and affirmed. BootsED (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support His promotion of vaccine conspiracy theories is well-documented and it is one of the chief things he was known for prior to the 2024 cycle.--Aresef (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Reliable sources call him by those terms, and even as HHS, he is known for his activism and theories. I'd also support a moratorium. AG202 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 14:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Please explain what your reasons for supporting keeping the current wording. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I have nothing to say that hasn't already been said. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 20:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support verifiable assessment of why this person is notable according to the most reliable of all sources. Also getting a new job doesn't change that and his new role seems to be inseparable from his anti-vaccine stances. Jorahm (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support along with much of what has been said above, including MOS:OPENPARABIO and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. He was notable for being anti-vaccine and a conspiracy theorist before his nomination to HHS. The new job title doesn't change what he became notable for initially; both the high profile title and the descriptions of how he presented himself prior should be reflected. Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• :MOS:OPENPARABIO is a reason to remove it from the first sentence since it doesn't describe him neutrally or reflect the balance of reliable sources like the guideline states.159.242.213.173 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::!— 159.242.213.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}} 82.69.0.161 (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Retain current wording per Zaathras, Muboshgu, and Hob Gadling. It is factual and abides by NPOV and BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The fact that he now has a government position to use to push his nonsense makes him even more notable as an antivax conspiracy theorist, and even more dangerous (already costing lives), thus justifying mention in the first sentence. If he were still a civilian crank, I could understand "not in the first sentence", but not now. As we see more deaths because of him, I'd consider moving those words closer to the beginning of the first sentence and adding "dangerous"! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Retain. It is what he is known for, and is abundantly supported by sources. It's why he has the HHS job, and nearly all coverage of his "work" in that role mention his anti-vaccine activism. He is pushing vitamin A in the Texas measles outbreak and shutting down vaccine resources. He has appointed David Geier to "investigate" the nonexistent vaccine-autism link (see also: policy-based evidence making - and note that if Kennedy can use legislative alchemy to make autism a vaccine injury then he will make millions, and the NVICP will implode, with the number of compensable cases going from hundreds to over 100,000 per year - it will become financially unviable to market a vaccine in the US). He is an AIDS denialist. Very few public figures in the US better fit the classical description of antivaxxer and conspiracy theorist. But first and foremost, he is described as an antivaxer by pretty much all credible sources, as a conspiracy theorist or promoter of conspiracy theories by many, and the arguments against basically amount to sanewashing just because a bunch of fools gave him a job for which he is anti-qualified. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support There are an overwhelming number of reliable sources providing opinions and evidence in support of the current language. ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support - Some of the most credible sources out there see this as a defining feature, more-so than his other credentials:

:{{tq|Installing figures like Robert F Kennedy Jr — the vaccine sceptic who heads the Health and Human Services department — was always a red flag. But the apparent singling out of mRNA technology seems ominous. Kennedy once decried the Covid vaccine as the “deadliest vaccine ever made” and pushed unsuccessfully for regulatory approval to be withdrawn.}}

:[https://www.ft.com/content/70654d6d-48ad-45be-8a10-dcd1a75ffc5e Financial Times - An ominous shadow falls over mRNA technology]

:CFCF (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::This does not give a defense of “conspiracy theorist”. Terms like “anti-vaccine activist” or “vaccine skeptic” are relatively uncontroversial.159.242.213.173 (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support. RFK Jr. is doing that for years, as per others. The attempt to delete that from the lead is blatant white-washing. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support: this is a core aspect of what he is known for, as shown by the rest of the article. Alenoach (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Per Aquillion, and support moratorium. Despite Kennedy's new position, RS coverage continues to emphasize his anti-vaccination beliefs/comments/actions, making the case for first sentence inclusion even stronger than it was in the past RfC. When a new core aspect of a biography arrives, and a prior aspect does not diminish in prominence, this counts as evidence that the prior aspect was a core one. Much time has been wasted on this page retreading old arguments, even when the trend in sources has not shifted. More improvement to the biography can be made if time is not wasted on the retreading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• :This RfC has been open for a while and I think we're at a consensus, where can I request a close? isa.p (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::WP:CR is the usual place. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive top

|status = none

|result = Editors raise the following concerns with this sub-RFC: (a) it was started before the actual RFC reached consensus, (b) it does not reflect the consensus developing in the RFC above, (c) if offers 8 different suggestions without offering the status quo as an option, and (d) it complicates the ongoing RFC above.

}}

Proposals containing:

• Vaccine skeptic in the first sentence: B, D, G
• Anti-vaccine activist in the first sentence: E, F, H, I
• Conspiracy theorist in the first sentence: H, I
• Anti-vaccine and conspiracy theories in the third sentence: C, D
• Controversial views on vaccines in the third sentence: A, B, E

A:{{tq2|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 February 13, 2025. A member of the Kennedy family, he is the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. He is known for his activism, including his controversial views on vaccines and public health.}}

B:{{tq2|Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, vaccine skeptic and author who has been the 26th United States secretary of health and human services since February 13, 2025. A member of the Kennedy family, he is the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. He is known for his activism, including his controversial views on vaccines and public health.}}

C:{{tq2|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 February 13, 2025. A member of the Kennedy family, he is the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. He has been a prominent figure in the anti-vaccine movement and has promoted various conspiracy theories and controversial views.}}

D:{{tq2|Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, vaccine skeptic and author who has been the 26th United States secretary of health and human services since February 13, 2025. A member of the Kennedy family, he is the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. He has been a prominent figure in the anti-vaccine movement and has promoted various conspiracy theories and controversial views.}}

E:{{tq2|Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist and author who has been the 26th United States secretary of health and human services since February 13, 2025. A member of the Kennedy family, he is the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. He is known for his activism, including his controversial views on vaccines and public health.}}

F:{{tq2|Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist and author who has been the 26th United States secretary of health and human services since February 13, 2025. A member of the Kennedy family, he is the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy.}}

G:{{tq2|Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, vaccine skeptic and author who has been the 26th United States secretary of health and human services since February 13, 2025. A member of the Kennedy family, he is the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy.}}

H:{{tq2|Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, author, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist who has been the 26th United States secretary of health and human services since February 13, 2025. A member of the Kennedy family, he is the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy. He is known for his activism, including his controversial views on vaccines and public health.}}

I:{{tq2|Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, author, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist who has been the 26th United States secretary of health and human services since February 13, 2025. A member of the Kennedy family, he is the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy.}}

• Oppose all options except the status quo, pause this until the RfC is actually done. You are pushing the boundaries of good faith with this. There is no consensus to change the wording, so there is no need for a list of options of what to change to. By presenting a list of mostly your own options, you are presenting a false consensus, and it is angering other editors - reasonably so. Carlp941 (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• This seems somewhat pointless; at the moment there is a strong consensus to keep the conspiracy wording in the first sentence, and precisely none of these do that. (Note: Option H was added after I wrote this). Black Kite (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :There is not a strong consensus at the moment and this is how we are going to get one. Feel free to participate in the vote. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 14:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes there is Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Agree with Black Kite, there's no point to this until the discussion above is closed. Then any wording would have to take into account any concensus from that discussion. None of these appear to be even close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::The discussion is open for both - there is no harm in having them open at the same time so people can discuss. It is only the first round of voting, so they will both be closed for the second round. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 14:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::Except, as pointed out below, when I made my comment none of your suggestions didn't include the one with the most support in the prior section. If the RFC goes as it appears to be going this section won't be needed. I suggest waiting untill it's closes before starting more discussions about the same subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::I also agree with Black Kite and ActivelyDisinterested, this is pointless, and yes, there is a strong consensus at the moment. And this RfC asked a single question - {{tq|Should RFK Jr. Be called an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence?}} - nothing else - and these proposals are not part of the RfC question asked, and whoever closes this RfC is under no obligation to consider these proposals when they weren't even included in the RfC question. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Option Z, the status quo, though this should just be aborted as a bad-faith maneuver by user TimeToFixThis. {{tq|There is not a strong consensus}} is literally false. Zaathras (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Option H is the status quo. A strong consensus would mean that a large majority of editors support one side. That is not the case it is relatively divided. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 14:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=1276034113 just added it] 4 minutes before my input, there were several edit-conflicts I had to navigate. You initially [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=1276032783 refused to acknowledge] it was a valid option. Zaathras (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::I only just started adding these options, so yes it was added recently. If you would like to help add options, feel free. This is not just up to me to add proposals. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 14:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The fact that you initially left out the version with the most support (the status quo) while denying that and instead included a bunch of other ones that whitewash Kennedy in one way or another, is, as Zaathras correctly pointed out above, a bad-faith attempt at swaying the RfC, which now has a voting section, a "compromise" section and this section, the latter two which are not needed. Cortador (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@Cortador Just because you don't agree with what he did and think it was wrong doesn't mean it was a bad faith edit, bad faith would mean he did it on purpose to try and manipulate the outcome, and assuming that this was his intention is speculative. I'd suggest taking a look at the WP:assume good faith guideline for more.
• :::::@TimeToFixThis looks like your proposals are getting rejected. What I was thinking though, instead of doing a separate vote, someone could bring up one of these proposals when stating oppose or support to help clarify why and how they made their decision.
• :::::Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::@Wikieditor662 Would you like to take the reigns on this one then. Seems as though people are unwilling to compromise. It seems that a majority would like to keep his vaccine skepticism included, while supporting a different phrasing and structure of the lead. My point of this was, how it has been done in other consensus discussions, to give people options to discuss and pick apart instead of just blanket supporting or rejecting a broad idea. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 04:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::No, a majority neither supports vague language like "scepticism" or a change to the opening paragraph. You are either not reading what people are writing here, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.
• :::::::This is yet another attempt by you to manipulate this RfC, and it is getting increasingly tedious. Cortador (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::This is a correct summary of what's going on. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::No, it isn't. The sentence "He is known for his activism, including his controversial views on vaccines and public health." doesn't appear anywhere in the article. It's an attempt at whitewashing Kennedy by using vague language such as "activism" without further descriptors. Cortador (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Bad-faith survey. This survey contains a full eight proposals, yet none, including the later-added proposal H, suggest to leave the article opening unchanged, which is the currently most-supported option in the RfC. Suggesting a flurry of options, all of which assume that there is consensus for a change (i.e. assume a specific RfC outcome), is manipulative. Cortador (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :@Cortador I think you are misunderstanding how a consensus discussion works my friend. This is a discussion where anyone can bring forth ideas to debate and discuss; as you are free to do so as well. To say that I am acting out of bad faith is defeating and insulting. We are in the proposal and discussion part of this RfC, so you can relax. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 04:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::After being called out twice for omitting the most-supported option from your list of proposed changes, you added a ninth option to that list, and the unchanged opening paragraph of the article still isn't included. My point stands. Cortador (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::As far as I can see, all of the people who are in the opposing camp will not listen to any argument or clarification you make regarding this issue. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::What are you talking about? We are the ones willing to meet you guys half way. You guys are the ones refusing to compromise. What part of this whole offering up proposals from what people are saying do you not understand? TimeToFixThis | 🕒 09:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Classic WP:FALSEBALANCE. Cortador (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Why are we entertaining this tendentious waste of time? Simonm223 (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Bad RFC for the reason numerous people have listed above. The current wording is ideal and all proposed changes would harm NPOV by making our coverage less reflective of the sources, while downplaying central aspects of the subject's coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• {{comment}} Although there is no consensus on implementing such a change, there is agreement on retaining the information that he is a conspiracy theorist. 82.36.162.198 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Bad RfC/Oppose all options but the status quo for reasons extensively articulated above. XOR'easter (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• {{sbb}} Close this part of the RfC as unhelpful. It's clear it doesn't include the options participants want and complicates the otherwise simple question above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• Not really seeing any consensus for a change above in the other section... 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)

• If you're going to run an RFC? It's best to tag it, so others will be aware of it. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems as though people are open to a compromise. I’ve put together a few options that aim to strike a balance—one side wants a more neutral and less loaded phrasing, while the other side wants these descriptors included.

Here are some potential alternatives I propose, feel free to add or critique:

Option 1:

{{tq2|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 February 13, 2025. He has been widely known for his activism, including his controversial views on vaccines and public health.}}

Option 2:

{{tq2|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 February 13, 2025. Prior to his appointment, he was known for his advocacy on environmental issues and his controversial stance on vaccines and public health.}}

Option 3:

{{tq2|Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954), also known by his initials RFK Jr., is an American politician, environmental lawyer, author, and activist who has been the 26th United States secretary of health and human services since February 13, 2025. He has been a prominent figure in vaccine skepticism and health-related activism, positions that have drawn both support and criticism.}}--TimeToFixThis | 🕒 07:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:I personally feel like option 1 is the best compromise. 2nd one makes it seem like he has changed his views. 3 is a bit confusing with its wording. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 09:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::1 is also ok with me......should have been part of the RFC proposal. This is why fast RFCs with no pre talk mostly result in no change. Moxy🍁 17:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I wholeheartedly agree with you moxy, this RfC is just too premature. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 15:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|one side wants a more neutral and less loaded phrasing}} is heavily loaded phrasing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:There's currently five people supporting a change and triple the amount of people opposing a change. Why are you pretending there's any sort of support for a "compromise"? Cortador (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:WP:NPOV is to neutrally reflect what is found in reliable sources, not what editors believe would be neutral in their own personal opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:All three of these options whitewash the issue. Especially option 3. All of them suggest that there are two legitimate sides to this, when one side is accurate and the other is discredited. No WP:FALSEBALANCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:While I like your ideas, I do have to admit that all 3 proposals would be a part of the opposing argument, as they don't contain his anti-vaccination nor his conspiracy theories in the first sentence.

:@Moxy Proposal 1 doesn't mention it in the first sentence, so I'm surprised you chose support on the RfC if now you're okay with not having it there. Also, there were discussions about this before the RfC.

:@Cortador While the number of !votes can be influential, consensus is not determined by votes.

:@TimeToFixThis Even though these don't contain it in the first sentence, they might be able to help others see what it might look like. If you wish, you can add these to the RfC.

:Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|I do have to admit that all 3 proposals would be a part of the opposing argument}} Good catch. The suggestion tries to sell itself as a "compromise" but there cannot be any compromise in a yes-no question. I already pointed out the loadedness but of course it is even worse. Another weakness is that it uses the milquetoast word "controversial" and the euphemism "skepticism" for his absurd anti-science views. This is a "let's not just remove antivax from the first sentence, let's remove it altogether" suggestion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Turtletennisfogwheat Btw are you sure you have to explain why you !voted a certain way? I saw you removed a !vote that just said "no". Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::Your argument was that people were allegedly open to a "compromise". You failed to demonstrate that, which is unrelated to how consensus is determined.

::Furthermore, as others pointed out, none of the proposals are a "compromise". The intended of all three is to whitewash Kennedy while pretending to seek some sort of middle ground. Cortador (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Wikieditor662 Added. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 10:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• At the very least "conspiracy theorist" should be removed. There is no justification of that except character assassination. "Controversial views on vaccine and public health" would be way more reasonable in a following sentence of the lead. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 05:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :My guy, you just said "I am not saying we should remove it."
• :Please make up your mind Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I was talking about "vaccine skeptic" TimeToFixThis | 🕒 09:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:*"At the very least?" It's the absolute center of the dispute. RFK's status as a conspiracy-theorist is well-established as uncontroversial fact in the highest-quality sources and is repeatedly emphasized as central to both his notability and his political persona; it is why his appointment itself has attracted so much attention - in effect, most of his other notability flows from this uncontrovertable fact. Removing it would cross a red line that would prevent the lead from accurately summarizing the best available sources and would therefore violate NPOV; no proposal that would remove or downplay it is acceptable. --Aquillion (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::Again NPOV calls for neutrally reflecting what is found in reliable sources, not whatever the mid-ground is in the opinion of editors. Censoring details central to his notability would go against policy and neutrality. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} the addition of inappropriate definitions in the first lines of the lead is also a form of censorship. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Republishing widely published information is Censorship? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::And if it's a inappropriate label then I would assume the best place to start correcting it would be the sources that Wikipedia relies on, as Wikipedia follows sources not the other way round. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::If "conspiracy theorist" is {{tq|character assassination}} then Jr. assassinated his own character. Manufacturing conspiracy theories and anti-vax propaganda was Jr.'s literal job as chair of CHD. He is quite prolfic. It's what he did for a living, with many books, movies, lawsuits, appearances. writings, etc. He massively increased the size and scope of the anti-vax conspiracy organization because he is so good at manufacuring such hooey. Nevertheless, shortly after we conclude this discussion and leave the article in its factual state, a new set of account names will show up with oh-so-reasonable un-serious posts demanding yet again we rewrite reality. There has to be a better way to handle this than to get sucked in every time. -- M.boli (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. It's not Wikipedia's job to provide medical care for those who have shot themselves in the foot. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Stealing this... Guy (help! - typo?) 19:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Very well said, XOR'easter. Carlstak (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Option 1 looks good. He is notable first and foremost as the secretary of HHS, so the article should start off with that, but the rest still should be mentioned. Jbt89 (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Collapse top|Obsolete discussion (RfC has been reopened)}}

@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)

:WP:RFC#BEFORE Moxy🍁 05:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

: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. Silverseren^C 05:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::@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)

:::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? Silverseren^C 05:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Not everything notable goes in the first sentence. An example I gave was Elon Musk and Donald Trump, where in the first sentence they're not called this despite this being very notable about them. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::He's been associated with Trump and Elon for less than a year. He's been an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist for decades. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's super controversial to say someone is a 'conspiracy theorist' straight in the lead sentence without following it with what their 'conspiracy theories' are. It gives Wikipedia a bad look and makes us seem biased and agenda-driven. It's seems opinionated and difficult to justify. I'm sure there is a better way of describing RFK Jr. in a more neutral light while still including this. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 09:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::: We don't need to make it "more neutral", only factual, which it is. Especially as "more neutral" in this context appears to be code for "toning down controversial items". People have been trying to remove the conspiracy theory information from this lead paragraph for a long time now, and the reason it is still there is because it is (a) a major defining facet of Kennedy's life, and (b) impeccably sourced. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I am not saying we should remove it. I am saying we can word it in a better way that makes more sense and bring it into better context instead of it just chucking it in there as if its nothing. --TimeToFixThis | 🕒 10:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Spot on. Hispalois (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:It's been reopened. Idk how to close this thread but your request has been fulfilled. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::why would anti-vaxer vaccinate his kids? I mean, you want to cite corrupt media sources receiving money from USAID fraudulent organization in spite of facts+common sense showing the opposite. I think Elon should donate few billions to WP under condition editing rules are changed back to pre 2006 period when wikipedia was still a decent source. 80.110.19.158 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Comments that mention USAID for no reason make it easy for us to know which ones are rants we can skip over. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::You keep mentioning USAID despite being unrelated to this discussion. Your thoughts can safely be ignored. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist discredit the accomplishments of this man, He is more of a skeptic than a conspiracy theorist 64.25.201.199 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:Not the topic of this RFC, it refers to conspiracy theorist being in the first sentence. He is deemed a conspiracy theorist via consensus of independent, non-vested sources per a previous RFC so regardless of this RFC's outcome, "conspiracy theorist" will not be removed from the article, it will just either stay in the lead sentence or moved somewhere else in the article. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

(Pinging some relevant parties: @Bluethricecreamman @Dw31415 @Aquillion @TimeToFixThis) thank you for using discussions first instead of reverting my edit.

I'm not opposed to your suggestions of reopening the RfC on whether to call him a conspiracy theorist and anti-vax in the first sentence. I do have some concerns however, and wonder what you all think:

These talks aren't going anywhere, it's just people repeating the same arguments and staying on their side. It's clear that keeping the discussion won't take us anywhere new.

As for the moratorium, I don't see how moving discussions of that to a new place would help me. The reason I proposed it's moved to a new discussion is that it wasn't related to the topic of the original RfC, and the original RfC is closed as its' consensus is pretty clear. And I gave rules which explain why these can count as exceptions for involvement.

Again, I'm not against reopening, I was just thinking I could save us all time here. What are your thoughts on the issues I raised? Do you still think I should reopen it?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:To be clear, per WP:NACINV, there are no exceptions that allow someone to make a non-admin closure of a discussion they have participated in. {{tq|For the avoidance of doubt, editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted}} (bolding in original.) As the person who started the discussion, you obviously !voted in it and would never be allowed to close it; in very rare situations where it is totally uncontroversial, yes, someone might WP:IAR and close something anyway - but the moment anyone objects, that presumption goes away, and it should have been immediately obvious to you that shutting down the moratorium discussions were controversial. And you did not {{tq|propose}} it be moved to a new location (which you could have done with a normal comment), you attempted to force it to be moved to another location via an inappropriate WP:SUPERVOTE. You need to self-revert your closure immediately. --Aquillion (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:You say you are not against reopening, so you should reopen it. Between here and the ANI discussion, multiple editors have now objected to your closing two contentious topic RfCs. In the future, it's probably best if you don't close any more RfCs you are involved in. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::If we are to reopen the RFC, can it be closed quickly by an uninvolved editor? Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:Good call. It’s pretty clear that these terms are what editors want kept in. However, if anyone decides to reopen the discussion, my advice would be to focus on building consensus around the actual structure of the lead and how information is positioned. Providing options for people to choose from and critique would have been a more constructive approach, in my view. My mistake was not raising this earlier, and this RfC ended up falling apart and became unconstructive. TimeToFixThis | 🕒 09:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:in general, another norm wikipedia editors try to do is generally not to edit each other's messages, or reopen closed discussions.

:If it gets to the point where someone else has to undo multiple involved closes, or if this goes to WP:CR, my guess is admins may look less favorably towards this. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Collapse bottom}}

:I think Anti-Vaccine Activist is more politically neutral then Conspiracy Theorist. 2600:4040:532A:D700:66DE:CE3F:2C5C:57D9 (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:Whatever the writer thinks RFK Jr is, shouldn't there be a reference link to evidence? IE. An objective source showing that RFK Jr is a conspiracy theorist? If that can't be achieved, for example because whether or not someone is a conspiracy theorist is a matter of subjective opinion (as opposed to, say, whether someone is a lawyer or a professional golfer) then it shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article at all. Calios1 (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::Read WP:LEDECITE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::Note, relocated the above from the RfC opening section. Zaathras (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC has been open for nearly 2 months, 2 votes trickled in in the last week, and the only other activity is a handful of single-purpose accounts that have added little of merit. At a 2:1 clip keep-to-remove, consensus is clear. Zaathras (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Collapse top|Obsolete discussion (RfC has been started)}}

The Official White House Flickr account has confirmed this (:File:P20250213JB-0287.jpg) to be his official portrait. It was taken by Joyce Boghosian. CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{Re|CMBGAMER 2018}} Because it seems more official than the profile picture that had previously been there, I have added it. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 21:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::The previous version seems to be a lower-quality version of :File:P20250213JB-0295.jpg, which the same person also uploaded, so this change should be fine unless someone believes that the aforementioned image should be used instead of the one that you suggested. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 21:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Could someone crop the infobox image please? Thanks in advance! Some1 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

: The cropped infobox image has been re-added. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::I changed the image to a cropped version of the one that had been there a few minutes ago. There is no reason for using the particular profile-picture image that had previously been present because it is a lower-quality version of another image. Besides that, I think that we could use any image from the "Official portraits of Robert F. Kennedy Jr." category on Commons. Which one should we use? –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 16:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The image should be the same aspect ratio as a normal official portrait 2600:1011:B341:703E:8194:2E10:243F:547 (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we want to use the cropped image as the one used in the infobox as opposed to the original photo? I could see us cropping it if the photo has a weird aspect ratio, but the original image looks fine to me. Billybob2002 (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{Re|Billybob2002}} I have restored the uncropped portrait as no one objected to your comment. My edit may be reverted if this is discussed further. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 18:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

These discussions led to the RfC at #RFK Jr.'s infobox image. Further comments should be made there.

{{Collapse bottom}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1743033683}}

{{closed rfc top|result= Pointless as official photo released :File:RFK Jr HHS.webp Moxy🍁 06:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC) }}

Which of the following should be RFK Jr.'s infobox image? 23:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

File:P20250213JB-0287.jpg|A - Current lead image

File:RFK Jr. Portrait (cropped).jpg|B

File:RFK Jr. Portrait (cropped) (cropped).jpg|'''C

File:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is sworn in as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services at the White House on February 13, 2025.jpg|D

File:P20250213JB-0295.jpg|E

File:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the White House on 13 February 2025 (cropped).jpg|F

23:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• I prefer B > D > F based on the cropping. Some1 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Are you sure this RfC is warranted? Isn't it better to try other methods of discussion first? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::See the discussion right above this one, including #Official White House photo should be added. In the past five days, the image has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=1275747982 changed] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=1275873287 multiple] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=1275885294 times] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=1276593256 already]. Some1 (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::I mean, in the previous discussion, everyone seemed on board with adding this photo. The current question seems to be what part of the photo it should be, but you haven't shown that this part has been discussed before, unless I'm mistaken. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Re-read the crop discussion right above this discussion and the diffs I've presented. Some1 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::That discussion was minor, and seeking consensus even without an RfC should stop the edit wars. But again, if you insist on having an RfC, I won't stop you. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I would agree that an RfC may be unwarranted here. Prior discussion was minimal. Does this meet WP:RFCBEFORE?
• ::
  
• ::Besides that, would a cropped version be eligible for an "Official portrait, 2025" caption? –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 14:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• F because it's the best lit, but the crop of D is also good. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• D or F based on cropping, but B is also fine. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 06:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• D or F look good to me. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• B looks the best in my opinion, though C and E are also pretty good. Opm581 (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• B makes the subject look prominent enough while still giving a good portrait scale. Pistongrinder (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• B, because it frames Jr. in the center of the pic and gives him prominence without him being overly cropped, the problem I have with D and F, and also gives him a natural background, rather than a blank white background like in E. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• E captures the essence of the subject quite nicely. Zaathras (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
• C looks best to me. Good balance of face, body, and background. F is a good runner-up, but the plain background looks worse than the blurry one. FWIW, I put all options side-by-side in infoboxes in my sandbox if anyone else wants to see how they'd look in-place. Vertyy (📲|📝) 02:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

He has a new official portrait I believe, it it shown on his X account 2600:1011:B341:703E:61E0:E3FA:E4B8:A0C4 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Now that a new portrait has been released since this RfC began, I've updated the infobox photo with that image [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&diff=1277069259&oldid=1277042369]. Some1 (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

He works for the trump regime which is Republican. Not sure why it says that he’s still an independent. Convince it forward, I guess. lol. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:Do you have any sources that state he's formally/officially registered/joined the party. You must provide evidence. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::There are lots of sources proving that RFKJr. is a member of trump’s Republican regime and as “a former independent”.

::- [https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/02/13/nx-s1-5294591/rfk-jr-trump-health-human-services-hhs-vaccines]https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/02/13/nx-s1-5294591/rfk-jr-trump-health-human-services-hhs-vaccines

::- [https://apnews.com/article/rfk-trump-health-secretary-vote-5dbefeef0537dc241e6fb33b8f2a748b]https://apnews.com/article/rfk-trump-health-secretary-vote-5dbefeef0537dc241e6fb33b8f2a748b

::- https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/who-is-robert-f-kennedy-jr-what-to-know-about-the-former-independent-presidential-candidate/3531004/?amp=1 173.67.182.46 (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::None of those references state that he is now a Republican. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes they do. They literally say that he is a member of trump’s republican administration. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::That does not necessarily mean he's a Republican. There were many Republicans actively working for and in support of Biden and Obama's administrations, that didn't make them automatically Democrats. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::NBC Chicago headline says "What to know about the former Independent presidential candidate". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Congratulations on being literate. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's in reference to RFK no longer being a presidential candidate, at that point. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::It also literally says (as you’ve pointed out) that he is “a former Independent”. The other two sources I have given clearly show that he is a member of trump’s Republican government. The gaslighting here is insane. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It does not say “a former Independent”. It says "the former Independent presidential candidate". Do you not see the difference? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes it does. It literally does. I’m confused why you’re trying to gaslight me. Are you an RFKJr. supporter? I’m confused how the HHS Secretary appointed by a Republican Party President isn’t considered a Republican? RFKJr. is clearly affiliated with the Republican Party at this point. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Republican George W. Bush appointed Democrat Norm Mineta to his cabinet, and Mineta never changed parties. There is no requirement for RFK Jr to be a Republican to serve in a Republican administration. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::William Cohen a Republican Senator appointed to Bill Clinton's cabinet. He definitely did not become a Democrat. -- 18:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}Democrat Barack Obama appointed Republicans

Ray LaHood, Bob McDonald, Robert Gates and Chuck Hagel to his cabinet. They were not suddenly transformed into Democrats. In order to say that JFK Jr. RFK Jr. is now a Republican, we would need a reliable source saying that he has changed his voter registration to Republican. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

: {{@|Cullen328}} true, but Obama wasn't running a neofascist regime. You know what they say about a room that has one Nazi and eleven people being nice to the Nazi? It has 12 Nazis in it... Guy (help! - typo?) 19:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|AGF fail about typo}}

:JFK Jr. died in a plane crash in 1999 and I never once claimed that he was a Republican. You do know that RFK Jr. and JFK Jr. aren’t the same person, don’t you? Also, voter affiliation is not the same thing as political affiliation. RFK Jr. is clearly as politically aligned with the Republican Party as is clearly shown by the multiple RSs which I have provided. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::"JFK" was plausibly a typo, so kindly tone down your hysterics over it. As you have been told several times, serving in a Republican cabinet does not automatically make one a member of the Republican Party. Being a member is about - shocker - membership. RFK Jr. is not a member. Zaathras (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, it was an obvious one character typographical error that I have now corrected and that the IP has wasted two sentences of mockery on. Revealing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Passing the fact that you didn’t know that JFK Jr. and RFK Jr. are separate people off as a “typographical error” is revealing. Your bias and ignorance is visible to everyone. There is no reason to think that RFK Jr. isn’t politically affiliated with the Republican Party at this point. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::WP:CNH? Moxy🍁 07:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Clearly. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

:Thank you for this reply Cullen. This sets the record pretty clearly. Just because a politician a president's administration doesn't mean that said politician is automatically part of that president's party. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The article has a short section on Kennedy's coat of arms, granted by the Chief Herald of Ireland in 1961. Is this relevant for the article? The coat of arms was granted to JFK, nor RFK Jr. and while it apparently is for all descendants of Patrick Kennedy (which includes RFK Jr.), I think it is, at most, relevant for the Kennedy family article. The sourcing isn't particularly strong either. [https://web.archive.org/web/20160803191207/http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=President.Kennedy The sole source] for the section is an archived bit from the website of the American Heraldry Society, which, [https://www.americanheraldry.org/about-the-society/ based on their About section], seems to be just a heraldry fan club. They exist "to study and promote the proper use of heraldry in America", but I can't see that the AHS has any sort of academic credence. Cortador (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed, that is pure trivia and has no relevance for this article. Should be removed. Jeppiz (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

::Seems like others agree - the section has been removed. Cortador (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Noticed one the "Personal life" subsections is currently named "Marriages and children", but children content is minimal (only eleven words), and that subsection has way more about his Adultery. Would it be more accurate to rename that section "Marriages and adultery"?? EarthFurst (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

: Is there any other subject in Wikipedia who has such a section title? BD2412 T 20:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:labelling a subsection to say "adultery" just doesn't seem consistent with any other Wikipedia page for individuals AstralNomad (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I have added to the relevant section of the article the statement from Kennedy earlier this week that "Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons". It is a remarkable pronouncement, all things considered. BD2412 T 20:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Mmm, I suspect he's realised that having American children die (or contracting SSPE, which has the same inevitable end) from a preventable disease like measles isn't a good look for him. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• John Howard welcomes him to the resistance on WP:SBM: [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/welcome-to-the-resistance-rfk-jr/]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

== This very talk page mentioned in The New Yorker ==

This very talk page was mentioned in The New Yorker, viz:

{{Cquote |text=Click on the “Talk” tab at the top of almost any high-profile article (try the one for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for instance) and you can read lengthy, civil, precise, citation-studded debates among editors about terms (“conspiracy theorist,” “anti-vaccine activist”), sources, and themes to emphasize in the entry.{{cite magazine |author=Margaret Talbot |date=March 4, 2025 |title=Elon Musk Also Has a Problem with Wikipedia |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/elon-musk-also-has-a-problem-with-wikipedia?_sp=582b9446-c64b-4479-b13f-2c815a9fe8d2.1741204500124 |access-date=2025-03-05 |magazine=The New Yorker}}}}

Cool! -- M.boli (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

There has been a clear uptick in uncivil or disruptive editing on this talk page by IPs (e.g., "Congratulations on being literate"), which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. I note that one of the participating IPs was later blocked for vandalism. In an abundance of caution, to prevent this talk page from becoming a magnet for incivility, I am temporary restricting editing of this talk page to logged-in editors. Any IP editor wishing to comment here is welcome to create an account to do so. BD2412 T 18:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Well if you look at recent news articles out there on RFK Jr he is hyping up Beef Tallow for some reason. The Guardian and Fox News has covered him recently hyping up Beef Tallow for some reason at a fast food chain called “Steak and Shake”. Yes but the research shows that Beef Tallow and Transfats were contributing factors to obesity and heart disease in past studies. Please show that part in the argument.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/12/rfk-jr-hannity-interview-beef-tallow

https://www.livenowfox.com/news/beef-tallow-vs-seed-oils-rfk-claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:382:2971:5FC:E4A2:A3BD:34BC:6A83 (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/03/14/nx-s1-5326555/rfk-beef-tallow-fries-seed-oils

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/beef-tallow-rfk-jr-donald-trump-seed-oils-nutrition-b2698213.html

https://apnews.com/article/seed-oil-beef-tallow-kennedy-4fdf0f30134277fd6dd20b4ede789295

Here are more sources covering the reason RFK Jr went to beef tallow and it's in response to the seed oils issue RFK Jr claims are poisoning people according to an Associated Press article in

March 2025.

″Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new health secretary, has said Americans are being “unknowingly poisoned” by seed oils and has called for fast-food restaurants to return to using beef tallow, or rendered animal fat, in their fryers instead.

In response to consumer concerns, some food-makers have stripped seed oils from their products. Restaurants like the salad chain Sweetgreen have removed them from their menus. Many Americans say they now avoid seed oils, according to a recent survey from the International Food Information Council, an industry trade group.″2600:382:1120:95A7:45BF:878D:43B:23D9 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Apparently in response to the 2025 Southwest United States measles outbreak RFK Jr. has been making the rounds trash talking measles vaccination.

• An NYT article describes a Faux News interview with Dr. Siegel where he promoted fringe theories and trash-talked the vaccine, in addition to voicing "a muffled call for vaccinations in the affected community".

::{{cite news |last=Rosenbluth |first=Teddy |date=2025-03-10 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/10/health/measles-texas-kennedy-fox.html |title=Kennedy Links Measles Outbreak to Poor Diet and Health, Citing Fringe Theories |work=NY Times}}

• An interview with Hannity which Faux News slugged as "We will make sure anyone who wants a vaccine can get one, says HHS secretary". Jr. also said that a) measles outbreaks were common and happened during the Biden administration, b) everybody used to get it, c) vaccine-conferred immunity decays too rapidly, d) previously-infected mothers (not vaccinated) confer resistance to their children via breast milk, e) vaccination was a personal choice accompanied by a long list of alleged possible adverse effects.

:In this interview he says he encourages people to use the vaccine, but the overall tenor of the conversation is to scare people away from vaccination and make it sound like everybody getting the disease was a better plan.

::{{cite web |url=https://www.foxnews.com/video/6369907937112 |date=2025-03-11 |title=RFK Jr. interview with Sean Hannity |publisher=Fox News}}(I don't have a secondary source reporting on this interview.)

• It seems to me the pull quote in this very article's 2025 measles section is a tad misleading: "Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons". Misleading because the same essay also says the death rate had gone down 98% before the vaccine was introduced, that everybody used to get it, and other statements to throw shade on the choice to vaccinate.

:Note the BMJ article (paywalled) for this quote is titled {{tq|...offers qualified support for MMR ...}} (emphasis added).

::{{cite web |url=https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2025/03/03/measles-outbreak-call-to-action-for-all-of-us.html |title=Measles Outbreak is Call to Action for All of Us |author=Robert F.Kennedy Jr. |date=2025-03-03 |website=Dept. HHS}}

It seems to me this article could use some updating. Leaving the 2025 measles section with the positive-sounding quote about vaccinating kind of whitewashes Jr's recent behavior. -- M.boli (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:What do you propose we add to that? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Googling around a little (I wish I had done more of that earlier) shows Jr's counter-productive messaging has been reported in more places. Here are just a few:

::* {{Cite news |first=Maria |last=Godoy |date=2020-03-07 |title=Amid a growing measles outbreak, doctors worry RFK Jr. is sending the wrong message |url=https://www.npr.org/2025/03/07/nx-s1-5320352/measles-rfk-west-texas-outbreak |access-date=2025-03-12 |work=NPR |language=en}}

::* {{Cite news |first=Steve |last=Benen |date=2025-03-11 |title=New State Reports Measles Cases as RFK Jr. Pushes Fake Cures |url=https://newrepublic.com/post/192616/robert-f-kennedy-jr-oklahoma-measles |access-date=2025-03-12 |work=The New Republic}}

::* {{Cite news |date=2025-03-12 |title=RFK Jr. Makes Unhinged Claim About Measles Vaccine as Cases Rise |url=https://newrepublic.com/post/192641/robert-f-kennedy-jr-claim-measles-vaccine |access-date=2025-03-12 |work=The New Republic}}

::* {{Cite news |first=Nathaniel |last=Weixel |date=2025-03-13 |title=Experts give Kennedy low marks as measles outbreak tests him |url=https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5191976-measles-outbreak-kennedy-response/ |access-date=2025-03-13 |work=The Hill}}

::I think that I could add near the top of the section that Kennedy's response included downplaying the severity of measles, promoting questionable therapies, and mixed messages about vaccination. One or two sentences with references should suffice. Maybe add the same in the standalone article on the measles outbreak? That article might deserve more detail. -- M.boli (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I have no objection to that. Want to draft language and present it here, or WP:BEBOLD (with extra care given the subject matter)? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a middle ground on almost all subjects where truth can be found. No middle ground was ever covered in writing this article on RFKJr. What is labeled as falsification and lack of evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Regarding the COVID vaccines and the role Anthony Fauci played, in hindsight now we can definitely and factually see through the VAERS publications what the evidence was in how the COVID vaccines were harming the American public. Senator Rand Paul also exposed Fauci and his lies, so definitely no middle ground written here. I have too many friends that were permanently harmed by the COVID vaccine with what many of us now have... myocarditis. Dandydave01 (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC) — Dandydave01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}

:There is no "middle ground" with a counterfactual screed like that. Just your unsourced personal opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::Within the first year of CoVid in 2020, according to VAERS site there were 16000 deaths within the first 2 weeks of receiving the 2nd COVID vaccine injection...true I am sure many were elderly and many in the nursing homes, but within 2 weeks? Now you know why many were refusing it. On a personal side we had 2 employees where I work that were not elderly that came up with pericarditis and myocarditis after the 2nd injections, one of them had to have fluid aspirated several times and is on permanent medication now for the pericarditis both were told by their doctors to not to get any further booster shots. Dandydave01 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Your personal conclusions from preselected raw data have no place in a Wikipedia article. Instead, you need reliable sources.

:::Since there is no way this will end up in the article, it does not belong on the talk page either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Would information from Dr. John Campbell count as a reliable source?, or even the CDC? Or is it only information you want that promotes the COVID vaccines. Dandydave01 (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::: {{re|Dandydave01}} Can you be more specific? A Google search returns multiple people named "Dr. John Campbell", and our disambiguation page, John Campbell, lists at least half a dozen with doctorates. BD2412 T 01:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::To answer the SPA's question: "Dr. John Campbell" is YouTube site for the COVID misinformation crackpot John Campbell (YouTuber). SPA also referred to the debunked meme about 1600 deaths due to vaccines which was circulating among the vaccine crackpot community a few years ago. The last few times people referenced "the CDC" to spread misinformation they were spouting total nonsense. It seems all the new editor has to offer is the same-old wackadoodle. -- M.boli (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Dr. Campbell doesn't use crackpot sources, he is not anti-vaccination...nor does he manipulate facts ...he just looks at trends such as # of COVID related deaths in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated, his sources can be pulled up from reputable sites but I have the sinking feeling wiki doesn't want to hear it if his findings don't support vaccination Dandydave01 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We don't want to hear from him if he's a crank, which [https://www.factcheck.org/person/john-campbell/ appears to be the case.] – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Oh, he's a crank alright—a nurse who specializes in misleading the gullible. Carlstak (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Definitely a crackpot. Cortador (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|Robert F. Kennedy Jr.|answered=yes}}

RFK Jr. is factually not an anti-vaccination activist as he has stated even under oath, and he also is not a conspiracy theorist as that would imply a personal opinion of the author and cannot be proven as fact. Both descriptions are being removed. Melleeefresh (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:*should be removed. Melleeefresh (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{Not done}} read the FAQ ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:Join the RFC Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Such a user's input into an RfC will be tagged with an SPA banner, and given little wight by the eventual closer. Zaathras (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Given all the well-reported major changes occurring during the second Trump administration to the US Department of Health and Human Services, including [https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/hhs-agencies-and-offices/index.html agencies] like FDA, NIH, CDC, SAMHSA, and CMS, it seems me that there is substantial sourcing for a separate article that documents many of the moves that are being made. I welcome comments. ScienceFlyer (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Per articles like U.S. Department of Defense censorship of DEI-connected material, that doesn't seem outlandish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a more general point than this article alone, and might be more appropriate elsewhere, but I want to register my absolute rejection of the term "vaccine skeptic". It is used by some newspapers fearful of a lawsuit they would unquestionably win, but it is WP:WEASEL, especially in respect of a man who has publicly stated that in his belief no vaccine is safe or effective. More to the point, it is a subjective term, where anti-vaccine activist is objective. If you campaign against vaccines, as RFK has done for at least half his adult life, to the point that it's his main source of income, then you are, objectively, an anti-vaccine activist.

ANTIVA are not "skeptical" about vaccines. A skeptic engages in critical analysis, whereas ANTIVA accept at face value pretty much any old bullshit that supports their agenda. The clearest indicator of this is the continued claim that thimerosal in vaccines causes autism. In RFK's case, he was responsible for creating the "public concern" that led to the removal of thimerosal from virtually all childhood vaccines. This had zero effect on ASD diagnosis rates. The evidence that vaccines don't cause autism is overwhelming, but the evidence that "mercury" in vaccines causes autism is irrefutible: when you remove the supposed cause and there is absolutely no change in the observed outcome, no dose-response relationship at all, then you can be as close to certain as we get when proving a negative. Despite this, ANTIVA still promotes the "mercury" trope, and the mutually contradictory aluminium trope, and the work of disgraced research fraudster Andrew Wakefield.

To succumb to the pretense that this is vaccine "skepticism" would be antithetical to Wikipedia's ethos of telling it like it is.

We should not call climate change denialists "climate skeptics". We should not call antivaxers "vaccine skeptics". We should not call moon landing hoaxers "NASA skeptics". We should not call 9/11 Truthers "9/11 skeptics". We should not call adherents to the casein theory of lunar geology "moon rock skeptics". The Amazing Randi was a skeptic. RFK Jr. is an antivaxer, and so are all the rest of the disease-mongering grifters. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

: Bingo! You are so right. Uninformed or misguided dissenters and objectors should not be dignified by calling them "skeptics". Skeptics use logic and evidence to make informed decisions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Agree. But I have to pick a nit: when you write {{tq|but the evidence that "mercury" in vaccines causes autism is irrefutible}} you obviously mean "doesn't cause" instead of "causes". --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yup. You got me, mate. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Agree (powerfully written btw)...I do think the article (now) does a decent job at consistency with calling him what he is - an anti-vax activist. Schwinnspeed (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS As he reverted my edit.

I personally get the two mixed up a lot and given they have the exact same name except one has Jr. at the end other people might also get the two mixed up and so it helps if there is a distinction on the page. DotesConks (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:The suffix alone in this page's title should be plenty per WP:NAMB to tell them apart, and I could've sworn that any chances of Robert Sr. and Robert Jr. being confused with one another was negligible when both are also known for very different things. You either way are the first person I know of who has mixed them up and I'm not convinced that addition is necessary. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thats interesting, my brain seems to omit the Jr part out and as a result I get confused. DotesConks (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top}}

{{u|David O. Johnson}}, regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=1285161284 this], I'm not very confident these citations actually exist or were cited correctly.

I searched the titles of the sources and couldn't find anything (except on Wiki clone sites), and couldn't find them in Google books. It's possible the sources were named incorrectly. Generally if the sources exist in paper only format, they might be cited in a book on Google books, but that isn't the case. I wonder if there are alternative sources that would verify that RFK {{Tq|"helped found and served on the board of the New York League of Conservation Voters"}}.

If any other users can find an accessible version of these citations that would also be useful. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have found the PBS source [https://panhandlepbs.org/now/science/kennedy.html] and it does not verify the claim, so I'm removing this one to start. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I was able to source it to verify he served on the board, but not as a founder. Looks fine now. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

I don't know how appropriate it is but everything he is currently doing is pretty much in line with the beliefs of a eugenicist. Hence why I have added the categories of eugenics. Indeed anti-vaccine views, making a list of autistic people, culling down programs to help people with autoimmune diseases, and the sheer amount of ableism... All of it can be said to be eugenics. If there is a consensus which disagrees on my view, fair enough, go ahead and remove the categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:We would need a reliable source saying so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Just a few:

::* https://www.salon.com/2025/02/05/usher-in-an-unleash-the-plague-era-with-rfk-and-elon-musks-hatred-of-public-health/

::* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/donald-trump-wants-to-make-eugenics-great-again-lets-not/

::* https://www.statnews.com/2024/10/29/healthcare-policy-news-rfk-eugenics-rhetoric-election-2024-medicare-joe-rogan-vaccines-dc-diagnosis/

::All these mentioned, I won't be surprised if many of the sources of this particular mention the fact in passing, that his rhetoric is just that. Its also heavily implied throughout many of the already-sourced articles, if not said outright. His rhetoric alone is enough. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::OS, as you collect more opinion articles that describe RFK's views as eugenic, you are building the case that the article should summarize and describe that opinion, with attribution to those who hold it. That said, unless there are many non-opinion sources stating the description as a fact, the categories don't belong. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The references do not support this change.

:::* The Amanda Marcotte article (Salon) says "Kennedy's confirmation hearing was rife with these eugenicist implications". That's about all she says with respect to this topic.

:::* Two say that Trump's rhetoric can be seen as eugenicist.

:::It takes OR to then apply some transitivity and drastic simplification to get from Trump's rhetoric to putting Jr. in the eugenics category.

:::I guess a user named "Omnis Scienta" is, perforce, all-knowing. But at Wikipedia we need salient references. -- M.boli (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)