Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 2

message: Despite the efforts of linkspammers and personal attacks from anon users with no edit history, the article is now fully sourced.  I've archived the old talkpage as it was not concerned so much with the article as it was with silly partisan bickering.  Cheers. L0b0t 16:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: The fact that RFK's grandfather was a bootlegger is not germane to information about his arrest for heroin possession, and seems to be an attempt to draw a specious line of causality between Joseph Kennedy's alcohol smuggling and Robert Jr.'s substance abuse. Additionally the editorializing regarding RFK's Rolling Stone article on the 2004 election should be excised as well. Perhaps l0b0t has a personal bone to pick with the Kennedy family, but this has no place in Wikipedia. Malodorous stank 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only editorializing going on comes from the anons who keep removing sourced content.  The "grandson of a bootlegger" and the "erroneous" are both statements of fact, any "specious line of causality" is being inferred by you.  If you have any evidence that RFK Jr. is not the grandson of a bootlegger bring it to the talk page.  If you have any evidence that the Democrats won the 2004 election and G.W. Bush is not the president, then bring it to the talk page.  If you do not have a source that backs up your claim, then leave the article alone.  Cheers. L0b0t 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Kennedy documents, in the months prior to the election, [Ohio's then-Secretary of State Kenneth] Blackwell issued a series of arbitrary and capricious voting and registration rules that could well have disenfranchised many people in the state.
Which could form the basis of a similarly inappropriate and slanted assessment vindicating Kennedy. Malodorous stank 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right.  Sorry I was being stubborn.  Cheers. L0b0t 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant, biased information 

message: To "Homefill" the ardent Kennedy detractor who keeps resorting to erasing entries and edits that are factual and cited: 
Regarding the heroin bust, you are riposting potentially libelous and unverified claims made in UK tabloid news.  The AP, NYTimes and TIME, among others, all reported Kennedy left the plane before his arrest and was in his seat when the crew became aware of his condition, not on the bathroom floor. There was no "needle in his arm."  Wiki is not the place for citing tabloid sensationalism. 
Similarly, re: alleged royalty payments, this re-appearing description that begins "Although he speaks out on environmental issues" and then "making money in the very industry he rails against" these are not objective phrases and have no place in a Wiki entry.  Share your opinions in the blogosphere, Wiki is for facts and objectivity.
Also, stop re-inserting the inaccurate description of the NRDC as a "lobbying group..." That's not accurate.  You clearly have an anti-environmental agenda here, which doesn't belong on Wiki.
As L0b0t says below, this is not the place for 'silly partisan bickering' and 'personal attacks', post facts and cite them to primary sources.  Have some respect for Wiki!
Goshawks 08:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The info about the arrest is sourced to a UK newspaper; that certainly passes muster with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP.  Also, please assume good faith, it is rather insulting that you would make assumptions about another editor's "agenda".  Your edits were reverted because you made wholesale changes without discussion on the talk page.  Some of the sources you added were great and have been retained, some (blogs) are wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia and have been removed.  Also, you pine for "primary sources", please see here for the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and why we try to avoid using primary sources.  As for the NRDC, do they lobby state and federal officials on behalf of environmental causes?  Why yes they do, making them just as much a lobbying firm as the AARP, MPAA, or the Moral Majority.  Does the NRDC work to strengthen existing environmental law and in some cases enact new legislation?  Why yes they do.  Does the NRDC work to restrict the uses to which private property may be put by its owners?  Yes, yes they do that as well. Homefill 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To Homefill:
What is the “good faith” sense of posting “unconscious in an airplane bathroom with a needle stuck into his arm” Homefill?  What relevance does this offer to an encyclopedia entry?  
Kennedy doesn’t hide his past struggles; he talks about them openly in books and interviews.  Did it occur to you to post that he has been sober ever since, over 20 years now? 
I’m not trying to remove the heroin possession fact, so there’s no “whitewashing” going on here.  Explain for us, what is your purpose then, to include sensational, potentially libelous, and unverified claims of unconscious lavatory floor needle-in-arm allegations.
Time magazine reported in 1983: “Traveling alone from Minneapolis to Rapid City, S. Dak., aboard a Republic Airlines Convair, Kennedy suddenly grew sick and dazed. Alarmed passengers near him reportedly summoned the flight attendant, who passed the word to the cockpit. The pilot radioed ahead to Rapid City to request that a paramedic and ambulance be on hand to meet the flight. When the plane landed, Kennedy was helped down the steps, but declined medical assistance.”
That was reported soon after the incident in 1983 (and is consistent with other news accounts directly concerned with the bust). Now contrast that with the revisionist sensationalism in the Times UK in January 2007 in an article about politics, (not a secondary source in a contemporary report about this specific incident).
Look closelyhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1294908.ece at the way the Times correspondent botches the details of the incident: “after he was found unconscious on the floor of a South Dakota airport toilet with a needle stuck in his arm.”
Can you find any contemporary account of this incident that claims that Kennedy was “unconscious” or “on the floor” or in an “airport toilet” (he was on the plane, remember? Not in the airport).  
Your source is clearly not accurate. Do you concur that this Times UK story is not the best reference to rely on here?
Why did you remove my citation to the contemporary New York Times coverage then?
I suspect others will agree with me that there’s no “good faith” in your efforts here. Is it your intent to use this graphic imagery to slander the man?  If not, then stop riposting this fictitious claim, please. 
Regarding the NRDC, no, they are not a “lobbying firm” in fact.  They hold 501(c)(3) status with the IRS as a non-profit organization. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)  As such, they are quite restricted in the amount of lobbying they can do and it’s not their primary function (which is public education on environmental issues, followed by occasional litigation to ensure enforcement of existing environmental laws). 
In fact, this encyclopedia's creator holds the same designation, please look at the bottom of this page where it says “Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.”  Would you call Wikimedia a “lobbying firm” Homefill?
As a 501c3, NRDC is nothing like the groups you list: AARP (a 501c4, donations are not tax-deductible), MPAA (a 501c6 trade association, donations are not tax-deductible), or the Moral Majority (which dissolved in 1989).
Agreed?  So then, how about this:
“a non-profit organization based in New York which works to strengthen existing environmental laws.”
That description is based on facts “easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person,” not on agenda-driven, disparaging mischaracterizations like yours. Remember: “make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.”
Goshawks 15:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Corrections 

message: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has appeared on the syndicated Sean Hannity Radio Show in 2005 and 2006.  Once, Sean's listeners heard Robert discuss an upcoming appearance before an environmental audience.  Sean inquired as to Robert's mode of transportation between upcoming gigs and was told that Robert would be taking a private jet.  Reacting to this light-heartedly, Sean expresses his opinion that telling an audience how important it is not to waste energy, and then immediately zooming off on a private jet, is incongruent behavior.  But Robert has an explanation: he says he only rides along on private jets that happen to be going to his destination.  Sean laughs out loud at the ridiculous remark - and he has kept the sound bite and replayed it many times since.
Jessemckay 10:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005/06 Appearances On The Sean Hannity Show

message: This article calls Robert Kennedy Jr. Anti-vaccine. On the contrary, his work and rhetoric shows he just wants better regulation and inspection of vaccines--manufactured by for-profit large pharmaceuticals--to make them safer. And to have more studies to look at ingredients of vaccines and their possible effects. I think this characterization of him being "anti-vaccine" should be stricken. I have no affiliation with the man. I just think this kind of broad labeling is dangerous and inaccurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8400:5050:2C1B:77D5:166E:9A94 (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nonsense and has been discussed ad nauseam. He (RFK Jr) claims not to be anti-vaccine and doesn't like the label but all experts agree that he is. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that he is not, 'anti vaccine'.  I've just watched him in a discussion saying quite clearly that he is in favour of vaccination but wants proper testing of vaccines.  Never mind loaded phrases like, 'ad nausem'.  The label has been challenged again and again here because it is a false claim and because anyone can verify that.  It is particularly bad that a false claim is made against a living person where Wiki rules require extra care.  If he says he is pro-vaccination, then that must be respected.  He would be in his rights to bring legal action (and he is a lawyer). Lindosland (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you making WP:LEGAL threats? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making demands for sourcing that are not backed up by policy. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to check where a reliable source got its data from. And we are definitely not supposed to use primary sources in order to question the secondary ones. Please read WP:SECONDARY. Also, take a look at older discussions on this Talk page and the archives. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Kennedy Jr. NOT anti-vaccine, he's pro-regulation and more careful study of vaccines 

message: "He is an anti-vaccine activist and 'conspiracy theorist' and promotes the scientifically-'debunked link' between vaccines and autism.Robert F Kennedy Jr. is well-known for spreading COVID-19 'misinformation and pseudoscientific anti-vaccine misinformation' on social media platforms."
The sources sited are not credible (they have an overt and specific bias) for these inflammatory statements.  Please correct the language to make statements without the controversial opinions or use non bias references to back up opinions.
:. The cited (not sited) sources are reliable and the description of RFK Jr. is accurate. They will stay. This has been discussed on this page many times before. Please see reliable source, WP:MEDRS, and earlier conversations about this on this talk page and its archives. Thanks. Also, please be sure to sign your posts with four consecutive ~ marks after you're done in the future. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021 

message: Article asserts that he claims but that there is no evidence of vaccine related injury, but there is a government agency that tracks this.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
With snapshots of the tables available to look out without downloading at:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/at-least-273-deaths-9845-adverse-events-after-covid-vaccination-so-far-cdc-data
I've read on this talk page that some people are trying to make the page reflect his actual positions rather than his opponent's distorted view of him. It's easy to find information from reliable sources for both sides of the argument, why can't the page reflect reality rather than propagandizing the argument. The only thing we're signaling by so obviously overstating the counter position is giving credence to his arguments because people think if they weren't the truth then why would the opposing side need to lie. Watched a livestream today where this topic was touched on relating to his recent ban from instagram, the streamer brought up the wikipedia page and systematically showed that the criticism of his positions was overstated or plainly false. I couldn't believe how wrong this was, I've used Wiki since middle school and I couldn't believe that the accountability system could be so easily defeated. I just wanted to point this out, I don't know how to edit but I'm hoping that better editors can review this and make this page more balanced and accurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.3.40.143 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The same Kent Heckenlively who is a known antivaxxer and was denied an Australian visa and who has advocated for the banning of all vaccinations? Who calls himself the "world's #1 antivaxxer"? I'm not sure his book would qualify as WP:RS. If you are suggesting changes, please bring reliable sources and specific edit suggestions. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

text: In short, you have two conflicting accounts from two differents sources: the scientific community and Wikipedia on one hand and Kennedy and his antivax troops on the other. And if source A and source B contradict each other, obviously source A must be wrong. Which, in this case, is the scientific community and Wikipedia. Sound logic, as always in this area. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple criticisms of his positions are overstated or outright false 

message: There is misinformation on this page. Mr. Kennedy on his website says plainly he is pro vaccine and has had all 6 of his children vaccinated. Yet, your page states he is anti-vaccine. Having better guidelines improving the safety of vaccines is not anti-vaccine. 
Pseudoscience is used to describe Mr. Kennedy's assertion that mercury and thimerosal are linked to autism, despite 89 peer reviewed references supporting this assertion listed on Mr. Kennedy's website. This term Pseudoscience is defamatory unless it is the assertion that 89 peer reviewed articles are authored by pseudoscientists. 
These are two discrepancies in accuracy presented for receiving access to edit this page.
Thank you, 
Dr. Wade Shaffer Konarocky (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed ad nauseam on this page. The answer is no. There is no misinformation on this page whatsoever. RFK Jr.'s self-labeling as being "pro-safe vaccine" does not mean that he is actually for vaccines. It's a common anti-vaxxer trope to not accept the label of being anti-vaccine. But this doesn't make it true. Plenty of reliable sources characterize him as anti-vaccine and it's completely accurate. Mercury and thimerosal are not linked to autism-the evidence is clear on this one and there is scientific consensus on the matter. And yes, in all likelihood the 89 papers you are referring to are junk science or by anti-vaxxers masquerading as legitimate scientists when they're really not. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020 

message: From primary source, he is pro-vaccine: https://youtube.com/5CfLDXpC324?t=678
Since this article is presently inaccurate, just providing accurate information. Until anti-vaccine is removed, or clarified properly, this article is falsified.
Thanks.
G.. (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ridiculous. He's anti-vaccine through and through. The article is absolutely accurate. Youtube is not a reliable source of information for Wikipedia articles. Thank you for your concern. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-vaccine 

message: Please cite sources that are both verifiable and reliable before adding this passage back into the article.  A claim like that, if accurate, should be easy to source to a major newspaper but I'm afraid the blog of an environmental writer does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion at biographies of living persons.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am well aware that the situation of the natives on Vieques is complex, this article is not the place to go into it.  This article is about RFK jr., there are many other Vieques related articles that cover the subject of the island in more depth.  Please see Vieques, Puerto Rico, Navy-Vieques_protests, United States Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico, Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, et al.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vieques 

message: When you listen to him speak it's quite obvioious that he has some sort of  speech impediment.
I was doing a Google search trying to find some information on the subject and was surprised there was no mention of it in this article.
If anyone out there has more information, would you please update this article?
Thank you. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kennedy has Spasmodic dysphonia, it is mentioned in the article and has been since, at least, 2006.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speech Impediment? 

message: Why in almost every Democratic politician article is no mention of pro life positions, but always of pro choice? pro life RFK, Jr.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.223.170 (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro life 

message: This section makes NO sense; it combines two completely unrelated events.  Why not combine the drug offense with the Riverkeeper section, and mention the protest offense somewhere else.  The key is that protesting isn't just a criminal act, since  it is part of some larger idea.74.72.200.28 (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that in a biography, as opposed to say a governmental dossier, the context of any part of a person's life is quite germane to the article. That is, after all, the entire purpose of writing a biography. The question is whether a section listing all convictions in one place, versus inserting them into the proper chronological sequence, makes for a better biography or worse one. I generally prefer chronological ordering for all biographies, unless there's some compelling reason to split out "thematic" sections, like with sections discussing a philosopher's works. In this case I don't see a particularly compelling reason to split them out, and it makes the article read like it was written by someone who, rather than trying to write an article useful for readers, is pushing a political agenda of "want[ing] people to know that Kennedy is a convict". --Delirium (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact of the matter is Kennedy has a criminal record and clearly pointing out that fact via a separate section (given his repeated convictions) is no mored biased than pointing out that his uncle, in an entry on Ted Kennedy,  left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown. The assertion that the term "Criminal record" is somehow biased is absurd. Also, the notion that there needs to be a "Civil Disobedience" section, as if Kennedy is a 90s version of Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi is absolutely laughable.  Moreover, his conviction for heroin possession further necessitates a section detailing his criminal past, unless of course you are trying to claim that he was using and transporting heroin in an effort to protest US drug laws.  The other cases mentioned in support of a Civil Disobedience section are irrelevant, unless those individuals mentioned also have previous convictions for crimes unrelated to so-called "civil disobedience".  By the way, going out of your way to mention that someone had to lay on an "extremely hot gravel road" is absolutely hilarious.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criminal record section ??

message: First marriage ended in divorce March 25, 1994. Second marriage took place April 15, 1994. That's a 21-day interval, which seems hasty from a sociological point of view.
Musicwriter (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there if you have additional relevant details you can add them.Tomsv 98 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriages 

message: The first item under criminal record says "After the court was satisfied with Kennedy's compliance with the sentence, it ordered that Kennedy's record regarding the offense was to be sealed and expunged."  I understand that when someone's record is "expunged", that should mean that the record, ideally, should not come up in response to any search.  So wouldn't the ethical thing be to also expunge the record regarding that offense from the article? Jack Waugh (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to ask the same question.  I moved the Vieques protest arrest to activism which is what it was - having a section called "criminal record" is POV.  The other arrest is now in Personal life, but I also question it on BLP grounds - if the record was expunged, should we include it? Tvoz/talk 23:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I've thought about this and agree that although this was expunged, it is a matter of record and therefore statements of fact about it are likely not a BLP violation. But we need to proceed carefully and not go beyond what is reported in reliable sources: speculation about his character almost 30 years ago sounds like OR to me, and could well be a BLP problem. Tvoz/talk 07:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I did not speculate on his character: I merely pointed out that certain facts of his life are a matter of public record, and that they may provide insight into his character. And on the Talk page at that, not in the article!  My primary point is that the drug arrest and conviction are a matter of public record, as is his coeval employment as an assistant DA. He is a public figure: these events are part of his life. I believe that an arrest and conviction for heroin possession, while an individual is employed as a prosecutor, is a significant event in that person's life.  And if there is any possibility at all that the individual might run for public office, that event is particularly significant because it is going to come up in a campaign. I remember very clearly that his arrest was a sensation at the time, and all of those newspaper stories are still in the archives. Any attempt to leave that out of his life story runs the risk of looking NPOV.Davidiank (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expunged Record 

message: This article has been tagged with a Wiki notation (Oct 2014) that the lead paragraph needed to be extended to be inclusive of more information included in the body of the article.  I have edited the lead paragraph in an effort to address that issue and have removed the tag. Feel free to improve upon my efforts.  Cheers. Mdukas (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of Lead paragraph - Jan 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080206085547/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5iuypM0fHL7WjvFC5zvGCFLGb53CQD8UHQJHO1 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iuypM0fHL7WjvFC5zvGCFLGb53CQD8UHQJHO1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Asserting material should remain that suggests scientific fraud underlies the subject's claims is a gross WP:BLP violation, as is falsely portraying it as being based on new criticisms when it is not. The removal of any response from the subject or criticism by Salon.com's founder is based on a misinterpretation of WP:RS and further underlies the WP:BLP issues inherent to this section. Realskeptic (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Salon retraction

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 00:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: This article has some overlap with the article currently cited, but I think this one is arguably better and more comprehensive and has more to cull: "Syria: Another Pipeline War". -- Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another of his articles on Middle East, from this year 

message: I reverted your edit because it appeared to be be promoting Kennedy environmental activism in violation of WP:NPOV, also I think you may have relied too much on primary sources, but I was on the fence about weather to fully revert or just change the wording , so I am open to any suggestions about improving the article. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  new edit 

message: "The article allegedly contained five minor factual errors"
"Kennedy argued that the errors were insignificant and that some were made by Salon during the editing process"
Even Kennedy admits the factual errors are there. So why does the article only "allegedly" contain them? I will remove the word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph should also say that there is no evidence of any connection between vaccines and autism. Such a connection was suggested by a paper the results of which nobody could ever reproduce, and which has been known to be fraudulent for quite a few years now (see Andrew Wakefield). The scientific community widely views Kennedy's opinion as not based on facts but on conspiracy theories. The article should say so; it is a case very similar to the anti-science shenanigans of other politicians such as the climate change deniers Lamar S. Smith and James Inhofe and should be handled the same way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegedly 

message: The article stated that ethylmercury is “much safer” than methyl mercury. The cited fda webpage does not solidly support that statement, But it does solidly support the statement that ethyl mercury is “safer” than methyl mercury, so I have removed the word “much.” JustinReilly (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethyl Mercury “safer” or “much safer” than Methyl Mercury 

message: I have opened a discussion in WP:FTN regarding the above section. - Location (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a bunch of good sources to key statements in that section, added text for context. Robincantin (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Views on autism and vaccines

message: Not sure why I'm not autoconfirmed, but could someone please do something about the phrase "anti-unsafe vaccine activist" in the intro?  I recognize that this is not the place to wade into the horrors of vaccine politics or loaded words like anti-vaxxer, but that phrase is an indefensible case of dividing the baby in half to avoid the argument.  Is there anyone who is pro-unsafe vaccines?  The salient point isn't whether he's pro or con, it's his claims about the safety of vaccines.
If it's untenable to claim that he agrees with the fundamental assumptions of the political movement he's one of the leaders of, then phrase it in a way that at least addresses the key issue: perhaps replace "He is a prominent anti-unsafe vaccine activist" with "He is an activist who claims that many routinely administered vaccines are unsafe"?
I think his position is dangerous and demonstrably false, but we should at least acknowledge what his actually demonstrated position is—despite claims made when confronted—and that it is a controversial one. That's sufficient for the introduction, especially if the evidence that he's culpable in the deaths of multiple children is addressed in a body section.
aja (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This was something changed yesterday, have reverted as this wording has been challanged before. You should also be autoconfirmed now, at least that's what your user-rights page says. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 Aug 2020: "anti-unsafe" 

message: Why isn't there any reference in this article to why his voice is funny? I hope this is taken as an honest question -- I don't know why he sounds like he does and I'm curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.32.75 (talk) 
::The article covers this.  He suffers from Spasmodic dysphonia.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that too on a recent radio outtake (2014). It may have been that fancy dysphonia thing, but it sounded exactly like Parkinson's to me. 38.115.185.4 (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly why I'm here! I just saw him in a commercial for his law firm, which has a class action suit going against Monsanto for Roundup weed killer causing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, & was asking people to call & be included in the suit.. I wondered why his voice sounded so "off". Figured he had to have some odd medical condition. Which he does, because spasmodic dysphonia is fairly rare to begin with, & it's more common in women than in men. This article has a single sentence at the very end ID'ing his condition, so it doesn't really "cover it" unless you A) read all the way to the end B) actually notice it & C) click thru to the Wikipedia pg re the issue. ScarletRibbons (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Voice?

message: It looks like Kennedy is no longer associated with the radio show, but I cannot find any coverage of this separation. An anon removed him from the list of hosts on the other page, but not from the infobox: . We still list him as a host here, but no one seems to be talking about it. Anyone able to dig up what happened and update this and Ring of Fire (radio program)
jps (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I don't see his name listed on the Ring of Fire website under the "Our Hosts" drop down. https://trofire.com/Writethisway (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ring of Fire Radio Show 

message: In the section on political endorsements, there was this paragraph:
"Kennedy has been critical of the integrity of the voting process. In June 2006, he published an article in Rolling Stone purporting to show that GOP operatives stole the 2004 presidential election for President George W. Bush. Farhad Manjoo countered Kennedy's conclusions,[210] but there were other people who argued otherwise.[211]"
The definitive investigation of the stealing of the 2004 presidential election by the Republicans is Witness to A Crime: A Citizens' Audit  of An American Election (Phillips, Richard Hayes, Ph.D.; Canterbury Press, Rome, NY 2008). Witness to A Crime not only shows the results of Phillips' research, but includes a DVD with more than 1200 ballot images, which allows the readers to see the primary source information for themselves! In fact, Mr. Kennedy was uncooperative with Dr. Phillips, who in 2004 went before the Ohio Supreme Judicial Court in an attempt to have the ballots in Ohio set aside before the December electoral college vote until the issues he and his team of researchers had uncovered were resolved. The Court refused to take action.
 
160.3.239.220 (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to section on political endorsements 

message: Correct the STAT journalist's name: Helen Branwell -> Helen Branswell 67.133.167.10 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021 

message: I cannot change that, so someone might do that for me. It seems like he is not president of the Waterkeeper Alliance anymore. At the Wikipedia page of the Waterkeeper Alliance is written that the president is Gloria Yaggi. On their website one can read that he resigned last year. Tim Henri Brünnel (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Waterkeeper Alliance 

message: Robert F. Kennedy is an advocate for informed consent.  He has spent years fighting for the rights of vaccine injured children.  He is not a conspiracy theorist.  He wins lawsuits with scientific facts. 184.98.150.172 (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021 

message: The first sentence summarizing RFK, JR. is not accurate.  "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American anti-vaccine advocate, conspiracy theorist, author, and environmental lawyer. He is the chairman of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group. He is the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of John F. Kennedy. He is also the president of the board of Waterkeeper Alliance, a non-profit environmental group that he helped found in 1999."
Should be changed to:
"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an environmental lawyer and the chairman of Children's Health Defense. He is the son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of John F. Kennedy. He is also the president of the board of Waterkeeper Alliance, a non-profit environmental group that he helped found in 1999."
This sentence should also be removed: "He is an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist and promotes the scientifically-debunked link between vaccines and autism.[4][5]"
He is not a conspiracy theorist. He's spent thousands of hours reviewing scientific studies. And the link was not debunked. It was confirmed by the CDC's own study. William Thompson, the top vaccine scientist at the CDC, has come forward and said he and others were ordered to destroy evidence that showed a much higher rate of autism among black boys who'd received the MMR vaccine at 18 months verses 4 years of age. You can find the audio interviews with Mr. Thompson online. 
Please correct so that this page does not libel Mr. Kennedy, but accurately describes his work. Shashabol (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

text: If you lack basic understanding of science, you can "review scientific studies" until the cows come home and it will be to no avail. And the CDC whistleblower story is a fairy tale. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh right: William Thompson is not a "vaccine scientist" at all, let alone "the top" one, he is a psychologist. If you cannot even get things like this right, you are not qualified to say anything about this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021 

message: https://kion546.com/video-2/2021/07/16/surgeon-general-issues-warning-over-vaccine-misinformation-as-white-house-turns-up-the-heat-on-facebook-2/
RFK Jr. was called out in a White House Press Conference over anti-vax rants2601:640:C681:C260:F836:8269:19DE:2666 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: RFK Jr named as one of the parties for Vaccine Disinformation

message: I realize that much of Kennedy's life and career has involved controversy, as is well discussed throughout. But it seems like trivial mud slinging to add a devoted Controversies 
subheading to #Personal life, which includes verifiable information of dubious relevance. See WP:PROPORTION: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." See also WP:STRUCTURE and the essay WP:CRITS.
*First, we are informed that in 1970 he was arrested for marijuana (at age 16), and at age 17 pleaded no contest to a charge of loitering (The New York Times notes he paid a whopping $50 fine for the latter crime). Is this encyclopedic? They aren't even "controversies," they're just mundane facts. They certainly pale in comparison to his adult arrests during environmental and military protests. Should we scour police blotters for juvenile jaywalking and speeding tickets as well? 
*The next personal "controversy" goes into undue detail about his 1983 arrest, even giving trivia like the name of the presiding judge. If it must be included, the incident could be condensed without losing significant information to something like "In 1983, Kennedy pled guilty to heroin possession and was sentenced to two years' probation and community service. Following his arrest he entered a drug treatment center and left employment as a government prosecutor during his probation volunteered for the Natural Resources Defense Council. His probation ended a year early." Exact dates, locations, names of civil servants, and number of hours are non-essential to the article (this is a good writing guideline, not necessarily a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline). "left employment as a government prosecutor" may be implied, but doesn't seem to be directly supported by the accompanying sources. A more informative change would be to move the whole affair to early #Career or the end of #Early life and education, as it thematically joins early life and professional career, concluding with his 1985 admission to the New York State bar.
*The third "controversy" is not personal but rather business: the hiring, firing and re-hiring of a Riverkeeper employee. This may marginally qualify as a minor controversy due to some board members resigning, but if the affair must be included, it could reasonably be condensed, and should be relocated and incorporated into #Riverkeeper, or omitted entirely, rather than tacked onto a laundry list of "controversies". --Animalparty! (talk)
:Agree completely. Remove irrelevant trivia as suggested. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, with this edit. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life: "Controversies" section 

message: Occupation: Author and Environmental Lawyer. "Anti-vaxxer, Conspiracy Theorist" is an opinion, not fact. He's spent years trying to get mercury out of fish, but he's not coined as Anti-fish. He just wants "safe" vaccines. Andreas-sapolski (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. This is clearly going to need consensus to remove. See discussion above and in archives. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021 

message: Hello. I think the ISBN number of the book The real Anthony Fauci is false. The correct ISBN-number must be: ISBN 9781510766808. Look here: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci/Robert-F-Kennedy/Children-s-Health-Defense/9781510766808
Do you agree? --Flip der Grashüpfer (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: reverted the above edit, with the tag note: "nothing to do with that article". Can anyone else make sense of his or her rationale for reverting? The article in question mentions Kennedy and it mentions the AAPS and it mentions Kempen. It would seem to be fair game for inclusion on Kennedy's page. Or am I missing something? Fitzrex (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the reversion. Not every article or event that mentions Kennedy warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. See WP:VNOTSUFF, WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:RECENTISM.  Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be bulletin boards or running logs of every new event that occurs. Relatively trivial events shouldn't be included at all, and using news articles that merely report what happened today or yesterday may be inaccurate and unreliable (WP:RSBREAKING), and leave unanswered the "so what?". What is somewhat conflated, or not readily distinguished, from the cited source is that Kempin of the AAPS published this open letter to colleges, while Kennedy (with the CHD) penned a different letter. In either case, did it lead to any major changes or actions? Have other sources considered any letter particularly noteworthy in regards to the entirety of Kennedy's biography? Or was it simply a routine action which some sources reported as news-of-the-day and then forgot?  And, assuming the material was deemed significant enough to go in an encyclopedia, it doesn't necessarily warrant its own paragraph, let alone a devoted section header, which can lend undue weight to particular issues, and drags down the overall article quality (see WP:PROSELINE and MOS:PARA: "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading"). Lastly, by using the term "COVID-19 vaccine coercion" in your edit and on this talk page, people might get the impression you are stating Kennedy and colleagues are doing the coercing. Per the source, the AAPS letter (not Kennedy's) accuses colleges of coercing students via their policy of requiring vaccinations in order to return to class. Kennedy's mentions coercion obliquely in reference to the Nuremberg code. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   I doubt "people might get the impression you are stating Kennedy and colleagues are doing the coercing" because they are not in positions of authority. Would you prefer "Anti-coercion activities" as section head? ... The curious thing is that I copied that text over from Children's Health Defence. Why did you not object to the text over there? Perhaps you should object to its initial author, not me... The recentism complaint (to pick just one) seems to fail for the simple reason that the article was written in May; it is now late July... The involvement of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons makes it noteworthy, do you not think? Both for the reason that a group of doctors sought Kennedy out and not, say, Alan Dershowitz, and for the reason that the group was a *medical doctor* group, not librarians, not restaurateurs, not an LGBTQ group, not the NAACP, who sought to avert COVID-19 coercion through Kennedy's legal services. Fitzrex (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The content at Children's Health Defense is equally out of place and lacking context for all the same reasons described here. Undue emphasis need not be limited to the last few months (Recentism is just one of many types of imbalanced writing: please read all the guidelines I've linked above comment, don't just pick one to complain about). You'll note right above that I objected to irrelevant trivia from the 1970s too.  No, I don't think the AAPS "involvement" makes it noteworthy: again, Kempin (not Kennedy) wrote the open letter to colleges, while Kennedy (not affiliated with the AAPS) separately wrote a different form letter than students or parents can send to their schools. I don't even know if there is a formal link between Kennedy and the AAPS. Find a source that says AAPS "sought Kennedy out." --Animalparty! (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Paul Kempin and the AAPS should not have been mentioned at all ... they indeed have nothing to do with the article--meaning the WP article that this talk page is about, not the citation. "a group of doctors sought Kennedy out ... through Kennedy's legal services" -- the citation doesn't say anything of the sort. (It's badly written, but that doesn't oblige us to badly read it.) And "why did you not object to this other thing" is not a valid question--editors don't see everything, and they have no obligation to respond to everything, and certainly no obligation to explain why they didn't (WP:AGF). As for "Perhaps you should object to its initial author, not me", you're the one who asked why something was reverted; no one is objecting to you, just trying to answer your question. -- Jibal (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OP was a sock so I've struck through their edits. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magnovvig/Archive. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  COVID-19 vaccine coercion 

message: He’s anti “no-placebo” vaccine studies. 
Read where CDC and NIH get their money and under what conditions WHO gives funding to 3rd world countries. 2600:4040:4019:9000:84DC:7C56:5888:A956 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the archives of this Talk page for a response to this. The "not anti-vax" claim has been addressed several times. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Then RFK Jr. should be in favor of COVID vaccines and a number of others that were studied in placebo-controlled trials. ScienceFlyer (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not anti-vax 

message: Per WP:HOWTOSD the short description should be no more than 40 characters. The editorial words "environmental" and "anti-vaccine" push the count beyond the desired 40. Besides, his legal work and activism goes beyond the environment and vaccinations. These terms go beyond the purpose of the SD, which is to give the reader a glimpse of what the article is about. Besides, they lapse into the forbidden "controversial or judgemental" zone.  – S. Rich (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description 

message: Suggest changing "the group focused on the perceived issue of mercury in industry and medicine" to simply "the group focused on the issue of mercury in industry and medicine". 'Perceived' implies that there is no established issue with mercury and it's interaction with biological life, this is simply not accurate, even if the mercury in vaccines is ethylmercury, it is just commonly agreed that ethylmercury is not as bad as methylmercury, that doesn't make it a non-issue. Ethylmercury has stated negative effects on biology in wikipedia's own article on ethylmercury as well as this pubmed article (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23401210/) and many more sources. Shrike 23 (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2021 

message: CITATION NEEDED ON REFERENCE THE STATEMENT THAT PERSON IS ALIGNED TO ANTI VACCINE HESITANCY — This is a subjective statement and requires review unless specifically noted by the person referenced. 2605:A601:A0C2:1C00:FC14:F3F4:4C9B:9DE2 (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021 

message: Support including “Conspiracy theorist” in lede and/or info box.  There are ample BLPs with “conspiracy theorist” listed prominently in their associated articles.  Obviously there is no policy or guideline against doing so here and should be done provided the reliable sources confirm that RFK Jr is a conspiracy theorist.  And from a brief examination of the current sources in the article it is abundantly clear that this is the case. --Artificial Nagger (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am obviously against "conspiracy theorist" listed as an occupation, or in the lede, or info box. With that noted, I don't see why a Section titled "Conspiracy Theories" wouldn't scratch your itch. He does support some conspiracy theories. But labeling it as an occupation makes WP look silly; it is opinion, not encyclopedic. I have the same concern regarding any other BLPs using the term similarly. Quietcat22 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If the sources call someone a conspiracy theorist, then for Wikipedia’s purposes it is factual.  Hell, checkout [Category:American conspiracy theorists] to see how often it’s used--Artificial Nagger (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Factual or not, it doesn't make "Conspiracy Theorist" an occupation. Quietcat22 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You’re hung up on “occupation” for some reason.  It’s simply a description of what someone is notable for.  There’s no specific requirement to even have that descriptor.  Artificial Nagger (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  unofficial poll 

message: "Since 2005, he has promoted the scientifically discredited idea that vaccines cause autism,[4] and is founder and chairman of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group.[5]'''
Good article -- however the awkward "scientifically discredited" comment is an opinion. The Scientific American article it references is an opinion piece. The autism connection remains a possibility, however slight.
As an alternative, the author could find and quote any news pieces that confirm there is some named authority making the "scientifically discredit" proclamation. That would serve the author's need to discredit Kennedy's idea. Inappropriate as that is.
````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleentruelsen (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an opinion, it is the scientific consensus. Read MMR vaccine and autism, Andrew Wakefield, Lancet MMR autism fraud, and the reliable sources quoted there. Whatever the place is where you got the misguided opinion that it is an opinion, it is an unreliable source. Avoid that source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial comment should be deleted or reframed 

message: I would suggest removing conspiracy theorist and anti vaccine. He is not anti vaccine, he is raising valid concerns regarding the current covid 19 vaccine that is not anti vaccine. Anti vaccine is someone who rejects all vaccines! Also a conspiracy theorist? Have some respect and integrity please. He is using his right to free speech and raising valid reasonable concerns. 109.76.25.31 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just give us one or two Reliable sources to back up those “valid reasonable concerns” and we’re good to go. Otherwise, it’s just your opinion. KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he's definitely a conspiracy theorist. I would strongly recommend keeping the descriptors anti-vaccine and conspiracy theorist. They're accurate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation. 

message: Robert F. Kennedy is not a conspiracy theorist or anti vaccine because of his disagreement of the current pandemic. I believe stating that he is on a public platform is slander. We have a freedom of speech in the United States. 75.174.8.147 (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. SpinningCeres 00:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: He's definitely a conspiracy theorist and not just because of his position on COVID-19. It is not slanderous. We reflect what the highest quality sources say and several of them accurately characterize him as a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaccine. Thank you for your suggesiton but the answer is no. This terminology will remain. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022 

message: Remove that he’s an anti vaxxer and conspiracy theorist. These are opinions not facts. 2603:8081:8401:E500:2D3C:2CCD:BEC4:4FE9 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been requested before and the answer is still no. These are accurate descriptors. Thank you for your suggestion. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2022 

message: I am the Assistant Dean for External Affairs at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. Robert Kennedy Jr is being incorrectly listed as a professor oh his page which is incorrect as he resigned in August 2017 and does not have professor Emeritus status. Can this statement be corrected? It is causing a lot of problems with the media because he no longer has any affiliation to us and this page is providing mis-information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.
CURRENT - INCORRECT: For over thirty years, Kennedy has been an adjunct professor of Environmental law at Pace University School of Law. Until August 2017, he also held the post as supervising attorney and co-director of Pace Law School's Environmental Litigation Clinic, which he founded in 1987. He is currently professor emeritus at Pace.
CORRECT: For over thirty years, Kennedy was an adjunct professor of Environmental law at Pace University School of Law. Until August 2017, he held the post as supervising attorney and co-director of Pace Law School's Environmental Litigation Clinic, which he founded in 1987. 
(remove the last line about professor emeritus status) Rachaelsilva16 (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ––FormalDude talk 15:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022 

message: Hi,
I'm totally new to this, but the "anaphylaxis peanut allergy" in the allergy section does not seem grammatically correct. I believe a more appropriate way to say it would be "peanut-inducing anaphylaxis."
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigETrain (talk • contribs) 05:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . ––FormalDude talk 15:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anaphylaxis peanut allergy 

message: Per WP:HOWTOSD the short description should be no more than 40 characters. The editorial words "environmental" and "anti-vaccine" push the count beyond the desired 40. Besides, his legal work and activism goes beyond the environment and vaccinations. These terms go beyond the purpose of the SD, which is to give the reader a glimpse of what the article is about. Besides, they lapse into the forbidden "controversial or judgemental" zone.  – S. Rich (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: - Hi, and thanks for bringing it here. The 40 characters is a guide and can be exceeded. What’s more important is that the SD accurately summarises the content. Kennedy’s stance on vaccines is by some way his most notable aspect and should be reflected in the SD. I don’t agree it shades into the “forbidden controversial”; it is what the sources say. KJP1 (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you are focusing too much on some aspects of the article content. WP:SHORTDESC says the SD is a "concise explanation of the scope of the page." When we add the POV descriptions we loose the desired concision. Suppose we said "energy conservation attorney" or "pro-health activist"? Or suppose we mentioned his media appearances? These descriptions are sorta accurate, but not NPOV. And they do not help the reader in discovering the scope of the article. Let's shorten the short. Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are misunderstanding/misinterpreting POV and NPOV. And that your proposed SD would mislead the reader by giving an inaccurate SD. KJP1 (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Agreed. KJP1 (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description 

message: https://respectfulinsolence.com/2022/02/09/rfk-jr-busted-making-a-political-donation-to-raga/
https://popular.info/p/republican-attorneys-general-association
There are now allegations that Robert F Kennedy Jr donated to Republican Attorney Generals according to these articles 2601:640:C681:C260:8DAF:549C:3B98:E579 (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of these sources appears to meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. Can you please provide better sources? Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert F Kennedy Jr donated to RAGA

message: Kennedy is not a conspiracy theorist, his works have data from reputable sources. 193.116.207.106 (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022 

message: Where is this book mentioned?! 2603:6080:2D06:D100:9011:4482:336:4F09 (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In two sections: COVID-19 and Selected works. A trick I use is the Find function on my browser. In my Chrome browser, I click on three little dots in the upper right portion of the screen and select Find. I think it's Find on Page in some other browsers. I can enter any word, like "real" in this case, and it takes me to all of the uses of the word on that page. I hope this helps. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Real Anthony Fauci 

message: This article about JFK Jr. is so adjunk left Tinnfoilcrap, it's not only unbelievable, it's also pure misinformation. We're still in the finding phase of thruth, so I don't expect an answer to my question before the pandemic trials have passed. 178.24.232.68 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who wrote this crap? 

message: New Hampshire primary 65.175.193.68 (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections 

message: Lockdown is mostly over but for some reason this page about a scion of one of America's greatest political families is still locked. Why is that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.163 (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because his fans are wont to turn the article into an anti-vax propaganda piece by adding the false rumors this  of anti-science spreads. Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Unlock