Other talk page banners

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government / Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Autism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance). COVID-19 Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York (state) Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Massachusetts / Presidential elections / Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance). Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesUnited States Presidents ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force. Virginia: University of Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject University of Virginia (assessed as Low-importance).

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

More on today's hearings. In addition to saying of Medicaid that the "premiums are too high" (which is confusing because Medicaid recipients don't pay premiums), RFK Jr., "also missed big when Sen. Ben Ray 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: RFK Jr. Completely Fumbles Basic Medicaid Facts in Confirmation Hearing

And also this story came out today: "RFK Jr. secretly recorded his second wife during their bitter divorce fight and in one conversation acknowledged he was 'polygamous' and blamed her for that. One recording might have violated state law—in a messy saga that ended with her suicide."

source: SCOOP: RFK Jr. Secretly Recorded Second Wife During Divorce and Acknowledged Being “Polygamous” – Mother Jones NME Frigate (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I'm new here but am looking for what RFK specifically said in his anti-vaccine stances and the sources don't show anything. They link to articles that just say he is anti-vaccine. One source quoted him but did not provide their sources. One source showed he took an anti-vaccine stance in 2005, which was 19 years ago. Does anyone have a source that quotes him, or better yet, a video or audio interview? 107.190.30.143 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some quotes, which we can add if not already in the article.[1] A key quote from RFK Jr. is "there’s no vaccine that is safe and effective", which was from a podcast in 2023. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• 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 "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Labeling him as an "anti-vaccine activist" or "conspiracy theorist" may be relevant, but it's not central to his most important and current role. A comparison to figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk (who has a WP:GA rated article) —both of whom have been linked to conspiracy theories — shows that this type of label is typically not placed in the first sentence for other prominent figures. In these cases, such associations are important, but not defining to their overall identity in the context of their articles.

2) Although well sourced, these contentious labels about RFK Jr. should be used cautiously and only if absolutely necessary. WP:NPOV and other similar rules emphasize that contentious material about living people should only be included when it adds substantial value to understanding the person’s significance. Given that RFK Jr.'s most recent role is his nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services, which has tremendous impact and relevance, we should focus on that in the first sentence to remain neutral. In accordance with MOS:OPEN, the first sentence should avoid excessive specificity, and using such labels could create unnecessary controversy without adding significant value to his profile in the introduction. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Chariotsacha (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His status as a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer 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.[8][9][10] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• Oppose: The argument that ‘we must establish notability by including these labels’ is inconsistent with how other biographies are written. Donald Trump is a convicted felon and was found liable for sexual assault, yet his lead does not begin with those facts because WP:LEAD prioritizes summarizing his overall notability rather than emphasizing specific controversies. Similarly, Elon Musk has been linked to conspiracy theories, but his lead does not introduce him that way.

If we aim for consistency, Kennedy’s lead should follow the same standard. Wikipedia does not typically define notable public figures primarily by their controversies, even when those controversies are well-documented. Instead, a more neutral approach would be to introduce him in a way that reflects his overall career and public recognition, while addressing his past activism in a later sentence. This ensures a fair summary without overemphasizing one aspect at the expense of neutrality.

Proposal:

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

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

• 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:

  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.

The appropriate weights for this guy's notability are:

1) 26th U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services

2) Son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy.

3) Kennedy first gained national recognition as an environmental attorney, working with the Natural Resources Defense Council and founding the Waterkeeper Alliance, where he led efforts against pollution and corporate environmental violations.

4) Over the years, he became a controversial figure due to his outspoken skepticism of vaccines and criticism of government and corporate influence in public health, including the promotion of various conspiracy theories.

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Oppose a blatant character assassination in the first sentence --FMSky (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @FMSky: undoubtedly. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've always thought of you as anti-racist.... thus this is a position that is puzzling to me."The Anti-Vaccine Propaganda of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr". Office for Science and Society - McGill University. 2021-04-19. Moxy🍁 19:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  "...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)[reply]

  What? Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well said. Drsruli (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  It was added based on consensus Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• Oppose per the many solid arguments above. ~ HAL333 18:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

• 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: Kennedy, 71, whose name and family tragedies have put him in the national spotlight since he was a child

USA Today: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent anti-vaccine activist

CNN: Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr

Forbes: The son of late Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, Kennedy is a longtime environmental lawyer and activist

Reuters: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a scion of the famed Kennedy family...A long-time environmental activist and anti-vaccine advocate

BBC: 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: 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: 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 anti-vaccination activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr

CNN Democratic presidential contender Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Irish Central: 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  Would love to see a source for this point of view very interested. Moxy🍁 00:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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.

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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) 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Support as per Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./FAQ and MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE and MOS:OPENPARABIO "The main reason the person is notable " ...what academic institutions outside US teach about him = Jonathan Jarry (2021-04-19). "The Anti-Vaccine Propaganda of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr". McGill University -Office for Science and Society. 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  WP:NOTTEMPORARY Moxy🍁 17:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure whether you read the second paragraph of that guideline:

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I suggest you review Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. Moxy🍁 06:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I responded to this here. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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.[11] Calling him "anti-vaccine" is neutral and it is DUE for the lead sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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 Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject.) Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I don't understand, what are you saying is wrong with this RfC? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless consensus determines it should be. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Can you answer my question? Cortador (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (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)[reply]

• Support The wording is accurate, as covered in WP:RS. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Read me Moxy🍁 05:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

• Strong Support per supporting editors above. Carlstak (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, and this makes no sense to me → 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  But don’t you see how that could come across as agenda-driven? 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)[reply]

  @Scope creep: please refrain completely from attacks on living persons; see: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Scope creep so you don't make this mistake again in the future, this is the first sentence at WP:BLP: 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)[reply]

• Support The RS supporting the classification are extensive. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• (Summoned by bot) 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Advocates are not the ones who chose to add that to his lead. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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:

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:

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

one side wants a more neutral and less loaded phrasing is heavily loaded phrasing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I was talking about "vaccine skeptic" TimeToFixThis | 🕒 09:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

If "conspiracy theorist" is 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Now that a new portrait has been released since this RfC began, I've updated the infobox photo with that image [12]. Some1 (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove that he is anti-vaccine he has made it clear publicly that he is not. Also remove conspiracy theorists because that is a pejorative statement and he clearly has backed up his statements with facts and evidence. 166.198.250.27 (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Read the FAQ. –  Opm581 (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Word of advice, if you wish to contribute to RFK Jr being called a conspiracy theorist in the leading sentence, please join the RFC above. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De-politicize the page, there is an obvious political skew in the incormation contained here, do the right thing, remove opinion, endorse facts. 2600:1012:B36A:E40:71E1:1672:555A:9563 (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to indicate a specific change and the reliable sources to back it up. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence, change:

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[discuss] who has been the 26th United States secretary of health and human services since February 13, 2025.

to:

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[discuss] currently serving as the 26th United States secretary of health and human services since February 13, 2025.

Rationale:

That's the standard diction for this type of description, across pretty much all bios of top US officials. No good reason to vary it here since it only makes it less clear that he is currently serving in the position. Manuductive (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Please see this RfC and put your opinions there. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 09:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That RFC is entirely separate from their edit request. I'm going to go ahead and change it.David O. Johnson (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"serving as" can imply an acting or temporary position. A July 2021 RfC about the lead sentence of the Joe Biden article determined that "is" would be used instead of "serving as". –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 16:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

literally anything would be better than “has been” Manuductive (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manuductive: "is" would also work, but then the "since" segment would be omitted, like with option B in the ongoing survey about the lead paragraph of the Donald Trump article. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 22:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that "RFK Jr. is the HHS Secretary, having been sworn in on [date]" but I prefer the wording of "RFK Jr. is currently serving as Sec HHS since [date]". Manuductive (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manuductive: That is also true, and it is almost the exact format that I used for the third sentence of the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services article. For your preferred wording, note that using "is" alongside "since" like that would be grammatically incorrect but that the current version of the first sentence works because the last part of it does not include "is". –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 23:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True. I hopefully meant to say "RFK Jr. is an American ... currently serving as Sec HHS since [date]". Manuductive (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be noted he is currently the highest ranked independent and the only non Republican in current order of presidential succession. Harry sisson (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He’s not an independent anymore. He is literally a part of trump’s administration, which is Republican. Not sure if you’re joking or just making a misinformed suggestion. 173.67.182.46 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's already mentioned in the Tenure subsection:

"He is the first independent or third-party presidential candidate to become a cabinet member after running for president." David O. Johnson (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

- [14]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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

He is not an complotiste 89.87.169.201 (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Opm581 (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Opm581: the IP obviously refers to this RfC. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which, in that case, the IP shouldn't be complaining so soon. The RFC has been closed and the decision has been decided. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to RFK jr as “anti-vaccine” is wrong and inflammatory 166.181.253.105 (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. That information is well-sourced.David O. Johnson (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]