Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 23:08, 8 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: Why does the article state Kennedy "is known for advocating anti-vaccine misinformation"? A: There is a consensus that numerous reliable sources describe Kennedy as promoting anti-vaccine misinformation. This wording is the result of a 2023 RfC. Q: Why does article state that Kennedy advocates "public health–related conspiracy theories"? A: Consensus is that multiple, independent, reliable sources describe Kennedy as an advocate and/or promoter of conspiracy theories. This wording is the result of a 2023 RfC.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Other talk page banners

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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). United States: Massachusetts / Presidential elections 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 Misplaced Pages. 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). United States Presidents: Donald Trump This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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). This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2024, when it received 13,390,576 views. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 11 times. The weeks in which this happened: August 30 to September 5, 2020 September 6 to 12, 2020 April 2 to 8, 2023 April 16 to 22, 2023 June 11 to 17, 2023 June 25 to July 1, 2023 August 18 to 24, 2024 August 25 to 31, 2024 November 3 to 9, 2024 November 10 to 16, 2024 November 17 to 23, 2024 The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. Jordanbakernyc (talk · contribs) has been paid by Team Kennedy on behalf of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Disclosed here.

In February 2022, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. tried the first vaccine negligence case at the state level in United States history.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Talk:Career

• I am proposing the following based addition--written from a neutral point of view--to be made under Mr. Kennedy's "Career" section.

• Because the "Career" sections appear to be organized for the most part in chronological order by year, I suggest placing this section about Mr. Kennedy's work as a medical negligence attorney at the end after the "Cape Wind" section, as it appears to be Mr. Kennedy's most recent jury trial.

Suggested Section Name:

Medical Negligence

In February 2022, Kennedy led a team of attorneys in the first negligence-based vaccine case to go to trial at the state level in United States history.

The trial, styled "William Yates Hazelhurst, By and Through his Conservator Rolf G.S. Hazlehurst v. E. Carlton Hayes, M.D. and The Jackson Clinic Professional Association," took place at the Madison County Circuit Courthouse in Jackson, Tennessee, and began on February 2, 2022, and ended on February 18, 2022. Senior Judge William B. Acree, Jr. presided over the trial.

Kennedy, along with co-counsel, Glassman and Aaron Siri, represented the then 22-year-old autistic Plaintiff, William Yates Hazlehurst. Marty R. Phillips and Craig P. Sanders represented the Defendants, Dr. E. Carlton Hayes and The Jackson Clinic Professional Association.

The lawsuit hinged on two theories.

First, that Defendant Dr. Hayes negligently administered to the then infant Plaintiff a series of childhood vaccinations, including the MMR vaccine, whilst knowing that the infant Plaintiff had (1) an underlying mitochondrial disorder; and (2) an active ear infection, thereby leading to the development of the boy’s autism.

Second, that Defendant Dr. Hayes failed to provide the infant Plaintiff's parents with all material information about the potential interactions between the child’s underlying mitochondrial disorder, ear infection, and the recommended childhood vaccinations. This failure led to the infant Plaintiff receiving vaccinations that should have been avoided, resulting in injury—the development of autism.

On February 18, 2022, the jury sided with the defense and found that Dr. Hayes and The Jackson Clinic Professional Association were not liable for Mr. Hazlehurt's medical injury.

Source #1: The Tennessee Jury Verdict Reporter - https://www.juryverdicts.net/TN7-22.pdf (The Tennessee Jury Verdict Reporter is a reliable and authentic source of legal information in the State of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee College of Law recommends it on its website: https://guides.lawlib.utk.edu/c.php?g=648011&p=4573478).

Source #2: Three Primary Sources - The Circuit Court of Madison County, Tennessee for the Twenty Sixth Judicial District at Jackson - "Order Setting New Trial and Pretrial Conference Dates," "Pretrial Conference Order," and "Order Admitting Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., ESQ. Pro Hac Vice" - https://harlequin-christin-19.tiiny.site/

Source #3: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/william-yates-hazlehurst-autism-childhood-vaccine-injury-liability/

Given that President Trump has nominated Kennedy to be the next secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and that as of December 8, 20204, President Trump is quoted as saying Kennedy will investigate supposed links between autism and childhood vaccines (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-rfk-jr-will-investigate-discredited-link-vaccines-autism-so-rcna183273), I think this addition to Kennedy's "Career" section is not only informative, but important.

Source #1 states in relevant part as follows: "Medical Negligence - The plaintiff (age 22 at trial) alleged that he developed autism after receiving childhood vaccines, including an MMR vaccine, three days shy of his first birthday – the theory alleged both informed consent and negligence by his treating pediatrician, the case turning on both the 2001 standard of care and complex causation issues – the case was tried for two and a half weeks and the doctor prevailed on liability Hazlehurst v. Hays, 19-38 Plaintiff: David C. Riley, Glassman Wyatt Tuttle & Cox, Memphis, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Hurley, NY and Aaron Siri, New York, NY Defense: Marty R. Phillips and Craig P. Sanders, Rainey Kizer Reviere & Bell, Jackson Verdict: Defense verdict on liability Court: Madison Judge: William B. Acree Date: 2-18-22 Yates Hazlehurst was born on 2-11- 00 to his parents, Rolf and Angela. His first year of life was mostly normal. He had a few illnesses but regularly treated with his Jackson, TN pediatrician, Dr. Carlton Hays of The Jackson Clinic. Yates saw Hays on 2-8-01 (just three days shy of Yates’ first birthday) for a twelve-month check-up. He also was tugging a bit on his ears and Hays diagnosed an ear infection. The doctor prescribed an antibiotic for the ear infection. He also provided the boy with a series of childhood vaccines including MMR (measles, mumps and rubella). Yates’ parents reported that within days the child had changed. Previously he was walking a bit and said “Mama,” “Dada” and “please.” his behavior regressed and he had emotional and physical problems. A few months later he was diagnosed with autism by a developmental expert. The parents suspected that Yates’ autism was related to his vaccination. They relied on proof from a treating physician and other experts and filed a federal vaccine claim. The causation theory was that the vaccine and/or a mercury-based preservative (Thimerosal) had led to the development of the boy’s autism. Moving forward as a test case, Yates’ claim was decided in February of 2009 by the Court of Federal Claims. In an opinion that ran 203 pages, the court rejected the case on causation. The plaintiffs appealed and a year later in May of 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. Yates (again through his parents) turned the litigation to state court. In a lawsuit originally filed in 2003 (03- 117), then voluntarily dismissed and refiled in 2004 (04-149) the parents presented a claim. The plaintiffs on behalf of Yates filed a case in 2010 (10- 290), later volitionally dismissed and refiled in this 2019 action, 19-38. The parents subsequently dismissed their..." Survivor200 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is incoherent. Moxy🍁 02:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

(1) What's incoherent?

Are you referring to what I wrote after "Source #1 states in relevant part as follows:"?

If so, I just copied and pasted what the first source (which I linked with a website) states.

Here is a link to the actual source which states what I copied and pasted for everyone's convenience (which turns out to have been more of an inconvenience lol): https://www.juryverdicts.net/TN7-22.pdf

(2) Let me know if you have any other questions. The subsection I am proposing to be added is important and relevant given that if confirmed, Kennedy will be our next Secretary of Health and Human Services. Survivor200 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It is only "important and relevant" if covered by reliable sources. A website that posts PDFs of jury summaries is not that. Zaathras (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I provided multiple reliable sources to substantiate my point. Let me break this down for you:

1. Primary Sources I shared three (3) primary sources—actual orders from the Court itself. These are the most direct and authoritative evidence of what transpired. You can access them here: https://harlequin-christin-19.tiiny.site/.
2. Jury Verdict Summary The PDF jury summary from The Tennessee Jury Verdict is a recognized resource in the legal field. It's not "just a random PDF"; it’s frequently cited in judicial opinions. Having worked for judges at both the state and federal levels in the United States, I’ve personally seen these verdict summaries used as reference material in drafting opinions.

Additionally, most trial-level opinions or verdicts are not included in large databases like Nexis or WestLaw, which primarily focus on appellate decisions. If you want trial-level information, you either obtain it directly from court orders (as I did) or use services like jury verdict subscriptions, which every state offers. These are widely used by lawyers and news organizations, though access typically requires a paid subscription.

1. News Articles: News articles, which you seem to favor, are actually the least reliable source for trial-level verdicts. They rely on journalists' interpretation and due diligence, which may not always align with the facts. However, for your convenience, here’s a news article detailing the case: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/william-yates-hazlehurst-autism-childhood-vaccine-injury-liability/.

To summarize:

• I’ve provided primary sources (the gold standard of reliability).
• I’ve offered context about how trial-level verdicts are accessed and used in the legal field.
• I’ve even included a news article, though it’s the least reliable source of the three.

Given this thorough explanation, is this sufficient to meet your standard of "important and relevant"? Survivor200 (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I found two (2) more primary sources - (1) the complaint that was originally filed for damages in the case; and (2) the ACTUAL judgment for defendants written by the judge in the case.

(1) Plaintiff's "Complaint for Damages": https://www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Complaint-Hazlehurst-filed-February-11-2019-1.pdf

(2) Judge William B. Acree's "Judgment for Defendants": https://www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Judgment-for-Defendants.pdf

This is more than sufficient. Survivor200 (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I’ve provided primary sources (the gold standard of reliability). Read the first sentence of WP:RSPRIMARY and get back to us. Zaathras (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I’ve reviewed the first sentence of WP:RSPRIMARY, as you suggested, and I believe it fully supports the inclusion of the court orders and related primary sources I’ve provided. Allow me to elaborate:

1. Primary Sources and Their Role on Misplaced Pages:

The Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources guideline explicitly states: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event and are often accounts written by people directly involved. Examples include... court records, laws, and other legal documents."

The court orders and verdict documents I provided are primary sources that meet this standard. They are authoritative, verifiable, and directly document the factual details of the trial in question. As such, they are appropriate for straightforward, descriptive statements of fact, such as those in my proposed addition.

2. Proper Use of Primary Sources in My Proposal:

The guideline emphasizes that primary sources must not be used for interpretation or original analysis, but they can be used for factual content when handled with care. My proposed addition adheres to this requirement by:

-Reporting verifiable details (trial date, participants, location, verdict, etc.) without inserting any analysis or speculative claims.

-Presenting these details in a neutral and chronological manner under the "Career" section, which is consistent with Misplaced Pages's editorial standards for biographical articles.

3. Supplementary Secondary Sources Provided:

While primary sources alone are sufficient for the factual details of the trial, I have also provided additional secondary sources, including a recognized jury verdict summary and a news article. This further reinforces the reliability and relevance of the proposed content.

4. Your Misinterpretation of WP:RSPRIMARY:

Your comment suggests that the first sentence of WP:RSPRIMARY disqualifies the use of primary sources, but this is not accurate. The guideline states:

"Material from primary sources should be used with caution, but not excluded outright."

The court orders and verdict documents are being used cautiously and appropriately here, exactly as the guideline prescribes. Excluding them outright, as you seem to advocate, would contradict Misplaced Pages policy.

5. Your Disproportionate Scrutiny and Editorial Bias:

Your dismissal of reliable primary sources (court orders) and secondary sources (jury verdict summaries and a news article) raises concerns about consistency in the application of Misplaced Pages’s standards. The court documents provided are not only reliable but also commonly used in legal contexts and precedents for biographical articles. Dismissing them without valid justification appears to reflect a disproportionate scrutiny that may stem from bias against the subject rather than adherence to Misplaced Pages’s policies.

CONCLUSION

In sum, I’ve addressed every concern raised about the sources and demonstrated how the proposal adheres to WP:RSPRIMARY and Misplaced Pages’s broader standards of reliability and verifiability. The court orders and related primary sources are the most authoritative evidence of the trial, and they are being used in a manner fully compliant with Misplaced Pages guidelines. I hope this clarifies the matter and encourages a reconsideration of your position. Survivor200 (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel that the issue regarding the sufficiency of the legal case evidence in the career section remains unresolved. Given our differing interpretations, I am requesting a third opinion to evaluate whether the cited case meets the criteria for inclusion in the article.

{{subst:Third opinion notice|Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#Career section}} ~~~~ Survivor200 (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I see no evidence it is an encyclopedia-worthy court decision. That's one reason secondary sources are important. The proffered evidence is an opinion piece in the CHD newsletter. I saw no existing Misplaced Pages article which covers this repeatedly failed two decade quest to link a case of autism to a vaccination. If it is notable, the disposition of this case likely belongs in that article. -- M.boli (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

So your bias is clearly showing when you state "failed two decade quest to link a case of autism to a vaccination." This case actually does just that. But as an editor, and you should know this, we aren't here to argue the merits of that theory on Kennedy's bibliographical Misplaced Pages case.

As such, I would like to address a few points of concern, particularly regarding neutrality and the significance of the proposed addition.

FIRST: Clarifying the Focus of My Contribution

My suggestion to include information about the February 2022 vaccine-autism trial is not an endorsement of the claim that vaccines cause autism. Instead, it highlights the historical importance of the case as the first state-level vaccine injury case tried in U.S. history. This is a neutral and factual observation that is independent of the case's merits or outcome. Ignoring the case’s significance based on its controversial subject matter risks editorial bias.

SECOND: Your Stance on "Notability" and "Secondary Sources"

You claim that there is "no evidence it is an encyclopedia-worthy court decision" and that secondary sources are insufficient. Yet, the standard for inclusion on Misplaced Pages is not whether we personally find a subject significant but whether reliable sources document its importance. Multiple sources have discussed this case as groundbreaking, which establishes its notability.

THIRD: Bias in Your Comments

While I respect your commitment to Misplaced Pages’s principles, your responses suggest a dismissive attitude toward this topic. For example, you referred to the effort to link autism and vaccines as a "repeatedly failed two-decade quest." While this may reflect your interpretation, such language risks compromising the neutrality required in these discussions.

Additionally, your earlier comments in this very Talk page suggest a strong predisposition against critical or alternative views regarding vaccination. This is evident in phrases such as "scores of doctors are still the minority and they are quite wrong" and "we won't give their conspiracy theories WP:FALSEBALANCE."

While it's critical to avoid false equivalence, this approach may inadvertently lead to the exclusion of valid historical facts.

FOURTH: Neutrality in Presenting Controversial Figures Like Kennedy

Misplaced Pages is meant to be an unbiased resource. When discussing contentious figures or cases, the goal should be to present facts in context and allow readers to form their own conclusions. This applies to both positive and negative aspects of a subject. By sidelining this case entirely, we risk appearing to favor one perspective over another, which undermines the encyclopedia's credibility.

CONCLUSION

In sum, my contribution is not about the scientific validity of the vaccine-autism link but about documenting an important legal milestone. Historical context, even when tied to contentious issues, is essential for understanding the broader landscape of public health, law, and societal debates.

Thus, I urge you to reconsider the proposed addition with this perspective in mind.

Thanks!! Survivor200 (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any citations that demonstrate anything about an "important legal milestone". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this point. The legal milestone lies in the fact that this case represents the first vaccine injury trial at the state level in United States history based on negligence claims. This is a factually verifiable milestone, irrespective of the outcome, and is supported by the primary legal documents from the case itself, such as the court filings and the jury verdict.

Primary legal sources are inherently reliable for documenting procedural facts, such as whether a trial occurred and its legal basis. These sources establish the unprecedented nature of this case in the broader legal landscape. For example, prior vaccine injury claims in the U.S. have primarily been adjudicated through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which operates under federal jurisdiction. This case bypasses the VICP entirely, introducing a state-level avenue for claims, a new legal precedent.

While there might not yet be extensive secondary analysis of this milestone, the significance of a legal "first" does not rely on widespread commentary to be noteworthy, especially when it introduces a novel legal path. The milestone is intrinsic to the case's procedural facts, which are well-documented and neutral in nature.

If there are specific types of citations or additional context you would find helpful to strengthen this point, I would be happy to work on that collaboratively. Survivor200 (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing substantive.

• Still no useful sources which show that this case is "groundbreaking", or in any way encyclopedic. The so-called "news" secondary source is the newsletter of CHD, hardly a reliable source, and even that article contains a caveat at the bottom that it is an opinion article. The enclopedia-worthiness seems to be in the mind of the one editor.
• There is presently little in this article about the legal fight to cancel vaccines, so it isn't clear what part of the article this lawsuit would pertain to. Discussing the disposition of the case could belong in the article which describes the case itself. I'm pretty sure there isn't any.

By the way, the supposed quotes of mine I think aren't mine. Also as I read the documents, the effort to get compensation for autism due to vaccine for this one person is factually a two decade quest which factually has failed so far. But no matter, my actual writings are probably just as offensive to that editor. It may be getting time for an admin to close this fruitless colloquy. -- M.boli (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. While I respect differing opinions, I’d like to kindly remind everyone involved in this discussion to remain focused on the facts and maintain a respectful tone. The dismissive and combative nature of your comment seems unnecessary and unhelpful in reaching a collaborative resolution.

To clarify, this case is not about canceling a vaccine, as you implied. That characterization misrepresents the case’s scope and significance and reflects a bias that detracts from a neutral, fact-based discussion. This case addresses a legal challenge over alleged vaccine injury at the state level, which is unprecedented in United States legal history outside of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). That alone makes it noteworthy, regardless of anyone’s personal stance on vaccines.

I’d encourage us to focus on improving Kennedy's wiki page by addressing the facts. If you have specific concerns about the phrasing or interpretation of the case's legal significance, I’m more than willing to engage with that. However, misrepresenting the case’s subject matter or resorting to adversarial rhetoric is unproductive and doesn’t serve Misplaced Pages’s goal of neutrality. Survivor200 (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

What we have here is a "new" user who does not understand basic Misplaced Pages policy regarding sourcing and notability, demonstrates an inability to grasp it when directed to it, and blasts us with Text Walls to obfuscate the point. This is all about a non-notable court case that reliable sources have made little to no note of. Case, as they say, closed. Zaathras (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but I’d like to address a couple of points constructively. While I am indeed a relatively new contributor, I believe Misplaced Pages encourages participation from users of all experience levels to build a richer, more diverse pool of knowledge. Dismissing my input based solely on my status as a newer editor feels unnecessarily exclusionary and contrary to the collaborative spirit of this platform.

Additionally, your declaration that "the case is closed" comes across as overly dictatorial and, frankly, unprofessional in this context. Discussions here thrive on reasoned debate and consensus, not unilateral decisions. If there’s a strong case for why this subject does not meet Misplaced Pages’s notability guidelines, I welcome a detailed explanation grounded in policy. However, asserting that the matter is settled without proper justification undermines the transparency and inclusivity that are fundamental to this community.

Let’s focus on the content and the policies that guide us rather than personal assumptions or authoritative declarations. I’m more than willing to work collaboratively toward improving entry r determining its proper status if given the opportunity to do so constructively.

Lastly, I’d like to clarify one more thing. I happen to be a lawyer who clerks for a federal judge at a high level. While my professional background is not directly relevant to this discussion, I feel compelled to mention it because of the apparent biases in some responses--especially stating that I'm just "a new user." For the record, I personally believe the court decided this case correctly. That said, my opinion is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

What does matter is the assertion that this was a "non-notable court case," which is both factually incorrect and dismissive of its broader implications. This case represents a unique and unprecedented legal milestone, as there had never been a state-level vaccination trial in U.S. history. The lack of widespread media attention likely stemmed from the controversy surrounding the issue during a period when the government was actively focused on administering the COVID-19 vaccine in February 2022. Survivor200 (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You are probably right, Kennedy's harassment of doctors who did nothing wrong with legal shenanigans, based on a study that has been known to be fraudulent for quite some time and the findings of which have been thoroughly refuted, is an interesting piece of information. But you need a reliable source talking about it. Note that it must be one that does not defend the fringe position Kennedy holds, because of WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Allow me to be pellucidly clear. Your opinion is irrelevant and your profession is irrelevant. If you cannot find multiple reliable sources that cover this court case in-depth, then it will not appear in an encyclopedia article such as this one. If there is a lack of media attention, then we do not include it in an encyclopedia. Zaathras (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Re-add presumptive nominee text

Some guy removed it for some reason citing https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:CRYSTAL when he has already been made a nominee, so not sure how that applies there. I don't have edit permissions so someone else has gotta do it. I would think that is pretty important information and every other cabinet nominee has it so I don't see why this nominee would have it removed. Grifspdax (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It is {{infobox officeholder}}. The officeholder-specific parameters were stripped out (effectively leaving only infobox person parameters).

A nominee is one step away from being an officeholder. A "presumptive nominee" is two steps away. It seems strange to me to use the officeholder infobox for somebody two steps away. To fix discordance (between office holder and two-steps-away-from-office-holder) the words "presumptive nominee" were added as extra text, along with HTML formatting and an embedded HTML comment explaining how to handle it. If the officeholder template is intended for people 2 steps away from holding office, it should have some parameters to indicate that, instead of relying on manual text, formatting, and instructional comments to editors. -- M.boli (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this is an AI-generated response because this has nothing to do with what I said. Grifspdax (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

A cabinet nomination can only be made by POTUS. That's Biden, until January 20 at noon. Biden has not nominated RFK Jr to any position. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Notice how it says "presumptive" Grifspdax (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

List of Awards and Honors

Was wholly deleted. While I agree with the editor that many of the honors are trivial, I think the removal warrants more discussion and justification.

The editors argument that the honors can be addressed in prose may have the weakness that the prose is too lengthy. List of awards and honors are common in biographic articles. What is the minimum number of notable awards needed to justify a list?

It would be useful to know this history of the list. Also, I do not want to list honors for a charlatan. trysten (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

A list of awards should only contains ones that are noteworthy, those that have seen coverage by reliable sources. In skimming the deleted content, they appear to be largely if not wholly sourced to primary and/or not-reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary comments should be more representative of article body

I think there should be improvements to the summary of this article to better represent the body of the article.

The summary says that RFK jr "is an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist, and conspiracy theorist.". To better represent the content in the body of the article, I recommend changing this to:

"...is an American politician, environmental lawyer, venture capitalist, startup founder, and activist. Kennedy holds several beliefs outside of mainstream opinion."

Reasoning as follows: The existing summary focuses on his professions, his activities and his beliefs. The summary comments leave out from his profession the significant work he did for the Venture Capital firm that he co-founded, including a notable early investment in Tesla Inc. It also leaves of the multiple start up companies that he founded. These are important aspects of his career, representing multi-year committments.

For activism, the summary specifies only the anti-vaccine activism, and leaves out the other actism that is specified in the body of the article. This includes activism in public health, public safety, indigenous rights and renewable energy. It would be much more representative to just say he is an "activist" instead of an "anti-vaccine activist".

The summary specifies only his belief in conspiracy theories, and leaves out various other beliefs specified in the body of the article. The article body describes a wide range of beliefs, some of them conventional, and some of them unconventional. For the summary to only list his conspiracy theory belief is not representative, and possibly violates the NPOV policy. MensaGlobetrotter (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

No objection to adding "venture capitalist". But his antivax activism is the most important and most part of his anti-public-health activism, given his main job in the last 20 years. Yes, he not only wants to protect the measles virus from vaccination, but also caries bacteria from fluoridation, but that was only a small part of his output. And outside of mainstream opinion is far too milquetoast for a guy experts call "an extinction-level threat to federal public health programs and science-based health policy". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and for engaging me in this discussion. I agree with much of what you say. However when I read the body of the article, I also see 20+ years of indigenous rights activism, and 20+ years of environmental activism that goes beyond his job as a lawyer. Further, the Encyclopedia Britannica summary section for this person refers to him only as "activist", without specifying any one kind of activism.

My goal here is only to raise the level of quality of the article to better meet encyclopedic standards, by ensuring NPOV and that the summary section of this article represents the body. I don't have a problem with the details in the body of the article.

So how about if we add "venture capitalist", and change to "activist" instead of an "anti-vaccine activist"?

Thanks for your time and consideration. MensaGlobetrotter (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where RFK Jr. has notability as a venture capitalist. Jr. did some work for a VC firm, VantagePoint, which is documented in this article. But the articles describing that relationship do not say that Jr. invested his own money in new ventures, only that he provided advice and served on boards and was made a partner and earned a salary. I saw no mention of notable early investment in Tesla, or any investment at all. If this famous person indeed had notability as a venture capitalist, it wouldn't be hard to find reliable sources documenting that.

The history seems to be that instead of investing his money in startups, other people shower money on RFK Jr. Other people give him lucrative board positions for his connections, give him gifts, even bought his house and paid for his vacations. It seems that RFK Jr. is the opposite of a capitalist investor, he sucks money from startups and troubled ventures that want to use his name and connections. -- M.boli (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and thanks for sharing the article. So yes, based on what is in the article, it would be a stretch to put venture capitalist in the summary. I will note that your article does confirm that VantagePoint was an early investor in Tesla and provides expanded context for what he was doing there. So your article should probably be an inline citation for the existing content on VantagePoint, which is not as well sourced otherwise.

Additionally, your article does document a significant amount of activism beyond what is in the Misplaced Pages article. So I think this really aligns with my earlier recommendation to put "activist" instead of an "anti-vaccine activist" in the summary, much as Encyclopedia Britannica does.

Finally, I missed this earlier because I was focused on his career, but the 14 books he authored in the Selected Works section suggest that "author" should also be included in the summary section. It appears that at least one of his books made the New York Times bestseller list, which is notable enough that the Selected Works section should probably mention that. Given the subject matter, it is probably also appropriate for the Selected Works section to say that some works are controversial if there is an easy reference to support that. Thoughts? MensaGlobetrotter (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

No. The subject's more recent activities and antics in the antivaxxer circles dwarf his prior business ventures. Zaathras (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. Craig, Susanne (2023-11-16). "How R.F.K. Jr. Has Turned His Public Crusades Into a Private Windfall". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-01-04.

I have found a better picture of RFK Jr. that I believe should replace the current info-box image

I believe this picture of him is more clearer and more high quality. I will leave it up to you guys if you think it should replace the current info-box image. CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It's one Gage Skidmore photo vs. another, don't really see one as better. Zaathras (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Autism articles
• Low-importance Autism articles
• WikiProject Autism articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Catholicism articles
• Low-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class COVID-19 articles
• Low-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles
• B-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class New York (state) articles
• Low-importance New York (state) articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Low-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class Massachusetts articles
• Low-importance Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject Massachusetts articles
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Low-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class United States Presidents articles
• Unknown-importance United States Presidents articles
• B-Class Donald Trump articles
• Mid-importance Donald Trump articles
• Donald Trump task force articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Virginia articles
• Low-importance Virginia articles
• B-Class University of Virginia articles
• Low-importance University of Virginia articles
• WikiProject University of Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions