Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Kirsch "a frequent donor to progressive candidates"

The text added by Miner Editor here is misleading. While Kircsh was frequent donor to progressive candidates at one point in time, he no longer is.

Per Mother Jones, he hasn't donated to a progressive in nearly a decade. It also says:

"Recent records of Kirsch’s political giving show that he supported the campaign of Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.). Kirsch’s opinion of some of the former groups that he supported seems to have soured, too."

and

"Now, with the same energy that he once devoted to progressive causes, Kirsch rails against most vaccines and other public health measures".

Since Kircsh no longer financially supports any progressives and has even changed his personal opinion on some of them, the text should be removed or changed. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't this be resolved by a few qualifying words: "Steve Kirsch, once a frequent donor to progressive candidates and more recently a promoter of misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines". BD2412 T 02:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Source says Kirsch has been a longtime donor to progressive candidates and causes;. Changed the article to say "long time" instead of "frequent". Miner Editor (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Longtime is misleading when he hasn't donated to a progressive campaign since Hillary Clinton was last active in politics. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Longtime" is the wording the source uses. Wikipedia runs of sources, not our personal opinions. Miner Editor (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources says "has been", past tense. What you added makes it appear he's still a donor to progressives, and that is not true. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I "have been" a contributor to Wikipedia. That does not negate my current status as a contrubutor now. Miner Editor (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't negate your current status, but someone who says you "have been" a contributor is making no claim that you still are a contributor. "Has been" is used to identify an action or a state that took place at an unspecified time in the past. The source makes no claim that he is still in any way a donor to progressives. We're teetering on WP:CIR at this point. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The source makes no claim that he is still in any way a donor to progressives. Actually, it does. You do not seem to have read the entire article, or if you have, you have not comprehended it. We're teetering on WP:CIR at this point. I could not agree more. Miner Editor (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, everyone else is wrong and only you are right. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

In this case, I was. You have a habit of being "confidently incorrect" and are a danger to the integrity of the encyclopedia, and an impediment to its improvement. Miner Editor (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude: I would warn you on your talk page, but since you have asked that I not visit your talk page, I will say it here: you need to be more careful with how you represent what sources are saying. You are requiring editors verify everything you do, and when you are proven incorrect, and the reading comprehension issue is with you, you lash out with accusations of incompetence towards others. You have wasted large amounts of my, and others, time with such bullshittery and it has got to end. Miner Editor (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

If you are that boastful about being right, you should supply quotes from the source that back up what you are claiming. Copying and pasting a quote would not just be less work than writing all that, it would also be more convincing, unless the quote does not say what you claim.

Do you mean Like Kirsch, Gorton appears to have historically supported progressive causes, with special attention, until quite recently? That is not as clear as you say it is: "until quite recently" refers primarily to Gorton and may fit Kirsch not as well, and even if we take it as meant to apply to Kirsch 1:1, it is not the same as "still doing it". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I mean like records show tens of thousands of dollars in donations from Kirsch himself to the Democratic party over the last decade—to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, among many other candidates for various offices. I also previously cited in this page a primary source which shows he contributed to Stacy Abrams about two years ago. Miner Editor (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

This entire page shows example after example of stonewalling and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by FD and it's time for it to end. Miner Editor (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude:I will be glad to take this to your talk page. You have, however, banned me from your talk page and I cannot reasonably be expected to take every issue I have with you to ANI. I will not be goaded into picking up the stick again at ANI... we have already been requested to stop with the back-and-forth there, and I am choosing to respect that. Miner Editor (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me, I have no interest in hearing from you or whatever your "issues" with me are. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I will endeavor to limit my pings to the minimum required by policy. Given your passion for skewing this article to cast Kennedy and everyone associated with him in the worst possible light while removing anything which paints them in a positive light, your reading comprehension issues, and given my desire to enforce Wikipedia's policy on due weight and verifiability, I expect a ping required by policy will happen sooner rather than later. Miner Editor (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

While that wording is technically correct, I don't know why we'd go all the way back to 2016 in our brief description of this person. His own article doesn't even cover his donations from then. Why should our single sentence on him be more in-depth than his own article? ––FormalDude (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think my proposed solution concisely handles this. BD2412 T 03:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll gladly settle for your solution over Miner Editor's factually incorrect version. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'll implement, and see if it sticks. BD2412 T 03:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Except the source LITERALLY says the exact opposite. The source says he IS a "long time donor" not "once was" one. This ignoring of the sources is frustrating. Miner Editor (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What's frustrating is dealing with an editor who apparently doesn't know the concept of grammatical tense, nor when to drop the stick. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The same source literally also says, "with the same energy that he once devoted to progressive causes"; even from this source alone, the qualifier is justified. BD2412 T 04:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Citing a line about him changing his "energy" as a basis for changing what the source literally said word-for-word about his status as a donor is absurd. Also, "longtime" does not mean "recent". Miner Editor (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The source cited, as a whole, quite clearly says that he supported progressive causes in the past and has ceased doing so, contemporaneously with his embrace of anti-vax conspiracy theories. BD2412 T 19:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the source is fanciful. Miner Editor (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Why we have to use that phrase at all? Is it relevant? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It gives propert weight to the context. Without that, the reader would be left with the conclusion that all Kirsch does is fund conspiracies. Miner Editor (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Well... he has been doing that a lot recently. [1] [2] [3] --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not relevant, and none of the other reliable sources that cover his Kennedy donation (NBC, PBS ) make any mention of his prior donations. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Per Mother Jones, he hasn't donated to a progressive in nearly a decade. The source does not say that. Here's what the source says: records show tens of thousands of dollars in donations from Kirsch himself to the Democratic party over the last decade—to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, among many other candidates for various offices. (my emphasis) You can find details of his contributions to "many other candidates for various offices" here: https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Steve+Kirsch the last contribution on-record seems to have been to Stacy Abrams in 2022.

My edit calling him a "frequent donor" was completely appropriate and supported by the source. Changing it to read "once a long-time donor" was not, and introduced factually incorrect and misleading information into the article. Miner Editor (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I quoted a passage from the same Mother Jones that specifically uses "once" to distinguish Kirsch's past support for progressives from his switch to his current course. We could quote the passage directly in this article, but I think it would be excessive. BD2412 T 15:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Using "Mother Jones" as a source for the political alignment of someone, or their political evolution, without attribution, is hilariously bad editing. Mother Jones is biased, according to concensus ("Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source": WP:MOTHERJONES). They're good for statements of bare fact, but using them for statements about someones' political alignment, or the evolution of their political alignment, is amateur hour. Miner Editor (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right, we should use a better source than Mother Jones. Implemented with this edit. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edit was an attempt to soften the fact that RFJ Jr. is being bankrolled by conservative donors. The "once" and "more recently" qualifiers now address that. Zaathras (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

My edit was an attempt to return the paragraph to encyclopedic standards. The fact of the matter is, not every contribution to the Kennedy campaign is motivated by antivaxx conspiratorial hysteria, and this being an encyclopedia, it should reflect that reality. Miner Editor (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• I reverted an edit from Minor Editor that removed that Kirsch is "a promoter of disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines". They demanded at my talk page that I self-revert, but given this seemed to already be settled with this discussion, I have not. Does anyone else agree with Miner Editor that that content should be removed? ––FormalDude (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Editors should be aware that FD found themself "under a cloud" at ANI and told the community they were "stepping away" from this article. They have reneged on their word and I believe they are a disgrace to the community. I will be asking for formal sanctions at ANI on them today unless they knock it off. Miner Editor (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Answers to Formal Dude's objections ––FormalDude (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

That you insist on framing Kirsh only as a supporter of conspiracy theories, along with your other edits, tells me you are not here to build an encylopedia, but are instead editing with an eye towards promoting a cause you support, or denegrating a cause you do not support (you being WP:NOTHERE will be a part of my ANI case, should it come down to it). Kirsch has indeed been a long time and frequent contributor to Democrats and Democratic causes including Obama, Abrams and Hillary, and Mother Jones wrote quite a bit about his contributions. Regarding the Mother Jones source, I believe it is a good source for Kirch's donations... the issue with Mother Jones is their liberal bias, but when a liberal magazine writes paragraphs about the good donations from a conservative, that merits inclusion if were are going to mention his "bad" contributions. Either you don't comprehend the issue of WP:WEIGHT here, or you choose not to... I'm not sure which is worse. Miner Editor (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages are not the appropriate venue to make conduct accusations.

I don't see why it's appropriate to relitigate this whole dispute all of a sudden. We did have that Kirsch once was a contributor to Democrats, but it was removed because YOU objected to the source that verified it, calling it "amateur hour". Now you're going back on that and saying that the part that explains his democratic donations are okay, but the rest isn't? That's literally cherrypicking. You can't accept only the part of the source that you like. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I am "going back" on nothing. My objection to the Mother Jones source was for its use in citing his political alignment, not his donations, and was about the insertion of totally different material. Miner Editor (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

You can't accept only the part of the source that you like Yes, actually, you can. For text saying objectively good things about a conservative (e.g. his contributions to Abrams, Obama and Clinto), a reliable liberal source would be fine. If, later on in the article, there is text saying subjectively bad things about a conservative (e.g. his political alignment), a reliable liberal source would be questionable. Please show me you comprehend that... thinking a source must be either wholesale accepted or rejected for an article is astonishingly ignorant of common editorial practice. Miner Editor (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Using only the positive content and disregarding the negative content of a reliable source is the definition of cherrypicking. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Absoultely astounding. Allow me to explain. When the positive content in source just happens to be acceptable, and the negative content just happens to be unacceptable, using it is not "cherrypicking" it is "being a good editor". Actual "Cherrypicking" requires intent to skew the article. My intent was to give proper weight. Your intent seems to be to paint everyone associated with Kennedy in the worst possible light, which actuall IS "cherrypicking". Miner Editor (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The intent to skew, via cherry-picking, is rather obvious. Misuse of sources in a contentious topic area is an actionable offense. Zaathras (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, after the Mother Jones source was removed due to it being biased, I did not restore it, or cite it, or add edits based on it. In fact, I never added or removed the Mother Jones source at all, so I in no way "cherry picked" anything, so spare me your stern warnings about "actionable offenses". I can, however, see why you could claim I am ADVOCATING "cherry picking" but on that, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you. What I DID do with the MJ source was, add a line about Kirsch being a frequent contributor supported by several paragraphs in the source. Unless I am gravely mistaken, that's all I actully did with the MJ source (besides point out it was a bad source to be citing for his political alignment). Miner Editor (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Source for "a majority of his financial backing is from Republicans"

@FormalDude: Where is the source for that? Miner Editor (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Miner Editor: Please stop pinging me, you've been harassing me over the contents of a single paragraph for days now. If you can't figure out how to find a citation and read the source to verify a claim, you shouldn't be editing here. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I have read the sources and I cannot find verification for your new text. I'll go ahead and remove it then. Miner Editor (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it either. This edit summary refers to a sentence in the New Republic article. But despite that sentence the New Republic article does not support a claim that Kennedy's donations "largely" or "majority" come from Republicans. An analysis of the 97 maximum donors in the 6/30/23 finance filing shows the maximum donors skew heavily Republican. However the FEC report contains over 6000 donations. The 97 maximal donors are a tiny fraction of all donors and roughly 20% the $3.3 million dollar total. I tried to edit the article to more accurately reflect the reportage. But I don't think we can use these sources to say "largely" or "majority." Vanity Fair article reports on the same study, not sure why we need both references. -- M.boli (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Per Vanity Fair: "Half of the $10.25 million it has raised this year coming from Republicans."

That, along with a majority of their top donors being Republicans, is surely enough to support the wording that "Kennedy has largely garnered financial backing from Republicans". The GOP makes up the largest group of donors to Kennedy's campaign. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Vanity Fair said half of the contributions to his super PAC came from republicans, not his campaign in general. You made the same conflation previously, edited the article with that same misunderstanding, and had to correct it. It's deja vu all over again. Miner Editor (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for finally providing a source (in your edit comment) where she said, donors are almost entirely Republican The reporter cites a source which, unfortunately, shows they were being a bit breezy and casual with their verbiage, and it's not supported. I'll work on this some more tomorrow. It's quite a rabbit hole. Miner Editor (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not really your place to second-guess a source's reporting as "bit breezy and casual". If the source is deemed reliable, we use it. Simple as that. Zaathras (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It is we as editors who determine which sources are reliable, and that can change. Simple as that. Reliability findings were not handed down to us from upon high; they were developed by Wikipdia editors, and as luck would have it, I happen to be one.Miner Editor (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Um, no, we do not do that here. That is found at WP:RSN if you wish to challenge a source's reliability. It would probably be on your best interests to respond to that ANI filing about you, soon, as there does seem to be a bit of a lack-of-understanding issue here. Zaathras (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

When they are the only one saying a thing, peeking at their source is completely appropriate, IMO. Also, that they were being casual I think is a valid interpretation. Reliable sources are allowed and expected to be breezy and casual and not 100% accurate in their hyperbolic lead-ins. It is actually required of us as editors to determine what the source is saying, why, and the context and sometimes, they can throw out a sentence while preaching to the choir that would not withstand 100% scrutiny in a court of law. It's the nature of the beast. Miner Editor (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

At this point in time, I am strongly of the opinion that the New Republic reporter has woefully misinterpreted their source. I know how outrageous this will be to some, who believe in "what a reliable source says, goes" but I also subscribe to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and from what I can find, the New Republic is the only source saying that the majority of funding comes from Republicans. Another source is required for such a high profile BLP. Miner Editor (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that you have no evidence for doubting the claim by New Republic, but nonetheless I'm willing to change the statement to just that Kennedy has received more financial support from Republicans than Democrats, since that gives basically just as much information and is supported by at least three RS, and we can get rid of the disputed tag. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The claim by New Republic was one sentence in an article reporting highlights of a report by somebody else. The rest of the New Republic article and the report itself neither support that sentence nor contain that claim. Neither does the Vanity Fair summary of the same report. Neither do any of the sources support the claim that Jr. has received more financial support from Republicans than Democrats.

And the claim by Zaathras that a few words appearing in a publication on the reliable source list requires us to turn off our Wikipedia editor skills and cherry-pick those few words is utter nonsense.

What the sources report is a) the analysis of the 97 maximal donors in the first campaign FEC report and b) half the money received by the super-PAC. Those are in this article.

I further agree with Miner Editor that if we publish something which turns out to be quantitatively, measurably inaccurate in a hot-button article many people are relying on then Wikipedia will take a reputational hit. -- M.boli (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The recently-added new source from ABC news has the same problem. ABC extended the analysis to the top 106 donors to Jr's campaign. Still about 1/5 the total money and a tiny fraction of the individuals. ABC news correctly qualifies their statement with "among those who gave him the most money", it does not assert that Jr.'s campaign has received more money in total from Republicans than Democrats or a majority of the money is from Republicans. -- M.boli (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Resolved with these edits. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Kennedy is a moderate

I think that given that unlike most "moderate" Democrats, Kennedy should be labeled as such here. He's got a healthy mix of left and right wing views and genuinely feels different from the average party line democrat. 2600:4040:445D:C200:21E2:7749:7E80:1958 (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

We generally label people as moderates if they're widely described as such by reliable sources: for example, Joe Manchin. Sources generally don't refer to RFK as being a moderate Democrat, so we shouldn't either. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Siblings' opinion of Kennedy's presidential candidacy as expressed in a group post.

I see that you have already noted the opposition of a number of Kennedy family members to this candidacy, but if the editors here feel it's appropriate to incorporate, this opinion was expressed in a group message by four siblings, Joseph, Kathleen, Kerry, and Rory, on the platform formerly known as Twitter, under Kerry's account. https://twitter.com/kerrykennedyrfk/status/1711419719683559659?s=46&t=xMkwotbTDKIuOJabQITw9Q

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"Despite holding many traditional liberal views"

Despite holding many traditional liberal views he has received support from ... (in the lede) seems to me to be an editor's interpretation. That Jr. receives a lot of support from conservatives and outside the Democratic party is well documented. I'm not sure where the "despite" clause comes from.

I reverted the "despite" clause out, but the editor put it back. So here we are at the talk page.

We could write Because he espouses many right-wing causes he has received support from ..., and probably find citations for that.

But it would be better to leave the text as simply He has received support from ...., which is what it said before the "despite" clause was added.

The current "despite" clause strikes me as speculative editorializing. -- M.boli (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@M.boli do we have any RS summarizing his views as generally liberal? It's not a great source, but On the Issues rates him as a centrist for what it's worth. (source) Woko Sapien (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you classify RFK Jr's view that 5G alters your DNA, kills children, is a tool of mass surveillance, and is partly controlled by Bill Gates? Is that "liberal" or "conservative" or what?

How about his view that Anthony Fauci is a mass murderer?

The article was much better when it stuck to the facts, viz: RFK Jr. was running for the nomination of the Democratic party. He drew support from outside the party and from right-wing circles.

Then some misguided editors tried to add their own interpretation and synthesis: Kennedy is a liberal, and despite being a liberal he was getting this outside support. Such synthesis didn't enhance the lede. Trying to label Jr. on a political spectrum is left over from that misguided addition. It was fine without such characterization, and I think that any such characterization doesn't work anyway. Best to leave it out, his views are described later. -- M.boli (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@M.boli never said it was perfect, just better now (acknowledging his right-wing views plus a source). That entire paragraph is in desperate need of sourcing - but I'm currently in an area with limited internet and can't make wholesale edits right now. I can do that later, and you're welcome to take a crack at it in the meantime too. Woko Sapien (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Updating campaign logo

3 days before announcing his switch to an Independent run, he changed his campaign logo. How has the logo not changed on Wikipedia yet? Can it be changed? 170.10.48.211 (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The image can be changed if the new image is a part of the public domain or the Kennedy 2024 Campaign announces it is able to used throughout Wikipedia

Until then, the current image for the page has to be used as all images published on Wikipedia have the condition that they are a part of the public domain or has permission from the creator ~ HistorianL (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not true, the logo does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection as it consists only of text. Even if it didn't, we could still use it under fair use. I've updated the file with the new logo. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

In the mention of Joe Rogan's endorsement, the "(Independent)" tag is not in italics. RickStrate2029 (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Fixed it. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

The following line either needs a citation or must be removed: "Other right-wing personalities who have encouraged his campaign include Mike Flynn, Alex Jones, and Roger Stone."

The section is allegedly backed up with citations #112, 113, 114, 115 and 116, but none of them provide substantiation for this line's claim. Four of these five citations show these major conservative figures want Mr. Kennedy Jr. to be Trump's running mate and/or what they like about his campaign, all AFTER he formally announced his run, and the fifth links further to a personal blog post from one of the conservative figures named speculating about how the race would look if he did run, since Mr. Kennedy Jr. expressed interest in running in March 2023, but none of them provide evidence of any of the listed names in the quoted line above 'encouraging' Mr. Kennedy Jr. to run.

We can also discuss how the CBS report (AKA a tweet from CBS' Robert Costa) about Steve Bannon being sourced to 'several people familiar' can simply be a rehash of the 'some people say' Fox News trick from the 90's that they used to launder manufactured narratives as the truth, especially with citation #115 quoting Mr. Stone himself, “I met him once. I have no idea who is running his campaign, and therefore no contact with them”, but that would be a separate edit request. Imnotyouok (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what is being said. Other right-wing personalities who have encouraged his campaign... means just that, they are supportive of RFK Jr being in the race, as they (wrongly, it turned out) thought he would be likely to siphon votes away from Biden. The line does not mean they gave literal encouragement personally to Robert Kennedy to run. There will be no change to the article. Zaathras (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

ENDORSEMENTS NEED UPDATING There are now multiple endorsements of Kennedy that should be added. Could someone do so before it gets too hopelessly out of date? John Stockon, Ken Ruettgers and Aaron Rodgers as well as Jamel Holley TrentBrownlee (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that Fox News and The New York Post are allowed as sources in Wikipedia, and the New Jersey Globe did not seem to be listed at all, so I am not sure what Wikipedia's policy is regarding it. Please find other sources for these endorsements listed as reliable here, so we can try to help you out. David A (talk) 08:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

There is also Pierre Kory who endorsed RFK. Jr on X. Patty J H (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's the video Patty J H (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it probably violates the personal posting policy on Wikipedia, so forget that? Patty J H (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Kennedy's apparent defence of war crimes by the government of Israel

Way too far into NOTAFORUM already. If you want to try again leave out all of the personal commentary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I previously thought that Kennedy seemed like the lesser evil compared to Biden and Trump, since I can live with somebody being paranoid if their heart is genuinely well-intended, but given the information linked to below (combined with what was stated about the suicide of Kennedy's ex-wife in his own Wikipedia page), I have changed my mind, and now think that he seems just as destructive and corrupt as Biden, even though Trump still exceeds him. https://www.mediaite.com/politics/are-you-kidding-me-rfk-jr-throws-down-with-krystal-ball-after-calling-palestinians-pampered-while-defending-israel/ Should the above information be stated somewhere within this page, and if so, is somebody here willing to handle it please? David A (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC) I previously thought I can live with I have now think are all rather skyscraper-sized red flags that you are approaching this topic irrationally and emotionally. To be a supporter of the state of Israel is not controversial. Zaathras (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Supporting the recent actions of the Israeli government, which include completely devastating an entire country, killing over 20,000 civilians in a very brief period of time, far more brutally than even the Russian invasion of Ukraine, especially towards children, and systematically starving over 2 million people, potentially to death, while 172 countries in the United Nations vote to oppose what it is doing, and only 4 support it, definitely seems extremely controversial, far more so than even anything else I have seen Kennedy do so far. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] David A (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC) The Gaza Strip is not a country, "20,000 casualties" and "starvation" are products of Hamas' PR, and the UN resolutions passed by the body at large are not worth the paper printed on. I think we begin to see who is the controversial supporter here, and it ain't Kennedy. Zaathras (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC) In a sane world it shouldn't be controversial to strongly disapprove of slaughtering many thousands of innocent children, and thankfully only 4 countries in this world officially disagree with me in this particular case. Please check through all of the sources I provided above at least, as they are quite reputable. Thank you. David A (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Anyway, we are both derailing from the main question here, which is whether or not the above information should be cited somewhere in this article. I would appreciate constructive input from other members here as well. David A (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC) ...slaughtering many thousands of innocent children, again, propaganda. No one is going to check any sources for you, as sourcing is not the issue. Israel is a democratic nation, engaging in self-defense against terrorism. Being a supporter of that is not controversial, and said supporters span the political spectrum. From Donald Trump to Joe Biden to Ben Shapiro to Bernie Sanders, and even to a spreader of antivax misinformation like RFK Jr. What a time to be alive, where diverse minds can unite together against terrorism. Zaathras (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Kennedy's recent comments regarding the situation in Gaza

As was suggested above, I am trying to keep this issue much more matter of fact.

Kennedy recently made the statements below regarding the 2023 Gaza humanitarian crisis:

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/are-you-kidding-me-rfk-jr-throws-down-with-krystal-ball-after-calling-palestinians-pampered-while-defending-israel/

I think that the above information should be stated somewhere within this page. Is this acceptable, and if so, is somebody here willing to handle it please? David A (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Never mind about somebody else handling the issue. I tried to properly do so myself instead. David A (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

As the exchange with that breaking Points girl is being hailed as one of the greatest defenses of Israel, sounds fine. Perhaps this Hindustan Times citation could be added, even. Zaathras (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Added source. Woko Sapien (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Request to remove mis(dis)information contained in the first sentence.

The first sentence of this page states that Kennedy is "known for advocating anti-vaccine misinformation" which utilizes loaded terminology meant to persuade rather than inform.

Recommend replacing with: ". . . known for voicing skepticism about vaccine efficacy and regulation."

This revision conveys his critical stance towards vaccines without the loaded implication of advocating misinformation. It is important for descriptions to accurately reflect the content of an individual's statements while providing readers with the context to understand the controversy or criticism surrounding them. 96.255.93.94 (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not "loaded". It is just how his position is judged to be by all the relevant experts who cared to say something about it, based on the facts of the matter. It's a fact, and presenting it as an opinion wpuld be dishonest. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The terminology as it stands is well-supported. BD2412 T 17:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not a user that is sufficiently confirmed

But I would like to add this picture:

Can someone who is of the noble Wikipedian service and has over 500 edits put this picture I found on the commons onto this page? If someone does I will be very grateful! Petjayso (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The picture is of his Ballot access Petjayso (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it serves no purpose. If he has ballot access in one state, we can just state it in words. Zaathras (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he has ballot access in Utah is already mentioned in the article, anyways. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2024

Robert Kennedy Jr did not spread “conspiracy theories and misinformation”. 96.248.117.19 (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Shadow311 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

He is not an anti-vaxer. He's for safe and tested vaccines. All 7 of his kids are vaccinated. Moreover, Ivermectin has proven to be effective against respiratory diseases like Covid. This news is starting to emerge on other platforms other than legacy media. Keeferwiki (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Vice-presidential choice

The Hill has reported that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may be selecting former U.S. Representative and 2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard as his running mate. Could this potentionally be added to the article under a "Vice-presidential choice" heading, like is currently done here on Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign? AmericanBaath (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This being an independent candidacy for which no nomination need be won, I think this would be appropriate to add. BD2412 T 01:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 2601:18C:8C01:370:3591:B776:530:2F04 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

While I have no problem in theory, I would want more than one source commenting on rumors--if there are other sources out there, that would do it, or if the reporting were itself stronger, that would work also. But for me, I'd say we're still in wait and see territory. That said, no worries if I am overridden by consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I would also agree that it would be a common sense precaution to require multiple reliable sources reporting on any given subject reported as a possibility. BD2412 T 19:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Dumuzid and BD2412, and in keeping with WP:DUE, that more is needed than just a single source commenting on rumors. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2024

Actor, Writer and Film Producer Mark Burzenski has endorsed Robert F Kennedy Jr 2601:199:4300:D860:2C00:4A6C:31FF:7E5D (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

While I'm sure The Zombie Elf will one day be a fine piece of cinema, this person does not appear to be terribly notable as of yet. Zaathras (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

He can be added once he gets a Wikipedia article, the current requirements. Longestview (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source covering his endorsement. Self-published sources are not enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Affiliation

Given the recent formation of the We the People Party, should the infobox not be changed to list "affiliation" as We the People Party instead of independent? AmericanBaath (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

His independent affiliation should not be removed, as he is still filing as an independent in several states, i.e. Utah. A "We the People" affiliation can be added to the infobox once it receives official party status, as well as any other party that ends up nominating him. Longestview (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

We could still create the party page CD967119 (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Create a page for what? There is no party, no members, no affiliations, no coffee mugs. Hell they don't even have a website or a social media presence. If this party every exists, we can think about a standalone article, but for now it is just a proposal on paper. Zaathras (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

explain why it's on the simple english wiki :skull: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Party CD967119 (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Because simple wiki is the redhaired stepchild of the Wiki-universe, and it appears that a far-right user is running amok on a little-trafficked site, taking advantage of the lack of oversight, note his watering down of the Nick Fuentes bio and the description of the fascist-fueled Charlottesville riots. What the Simples do over there has no bearing on the real Wikipedia here. Zaathras (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey now. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I do think the "We the People" Party should at least be Mentioned. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the "ballot access" section, which is the primary reason he is forming these parties. Longestview (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright Fair Enough. Though Zaathras seems a bit Biased Against the Simple English Wiki. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The Simple English Wikipedia is very unmoderated and quite goofy at times. Longestview (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Oddly, the article on We The People Party failed to notice that a number of candidates have run under that banner in recent years. Here is Category: We the People Party at Ballotpedia. However I have not seen any web presence or corporate entity under that name. -- M.boli (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Are these "we the people" parties seperate entities? Longestview (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It would take some more research to be certain, but just looking at the "A's" there, one was a candidate in Mass, one New Jersey, and one in Minnesota. It is unlikely that these 3 candidates whose finishes were a statistical irrelevance in each of their elections are members of a party with national reach. Zaathras (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there is no national We the People Party. The Kennedy campaign is forming party organizations by that name in several states. The news articles are somewhat careful about identifying We the People parties plural, using the singular for individual state organizing efforts. Just as the major national parties have parties registered in each state. I surmise there must be an existing organization with that name in Texas. Maybe related to Grassroots America - We the People? The only Texas organization I found in the FEC database was terminated in 2012. -- M.boli (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Anti-unsafe vaccines not Anti-vaccine

Let’s get this corrected. He is NOT ANTI-VACCINE. Read the children’s health defense website info and correct this wiki. 2600:8800:920E:B00:BD03:B351:DBE8:935 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Children's Health Defense? The same one that is "mainly known for anti-vaccine disinformation"? Dumuzid (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Has there ever been a vaccine product which would be correctly labelled as unsafe - even one? 'mainly known for' is an odd way to put it.

Mainly known by whom? The population presumably...

And how do you establish what it is mainly known for by said population?

Is the CDC mainly known for denying the lab leak theory, which is now accepted? 51.37.254.115 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

vaccine product which would be correctly labelled If it is unsafe, it is taken out of circulation. It would be a waste of money to label it before throwing it away.

how do you establish We do not. Sources do. The sources are linked in the article linked above.

LL is not "accepted" by science. Stop using this page as a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Same thing. Kennedy views all existing vaccines as unsafe because he is innumerate and scientifically illiterate. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling Why are you posting your political views in a talk page? I am pretty sure you cannot do that, but please correct me if I am wrong Petjayso (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. It is a scientific question, not a political one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr. actually took the Covid vaccine himself - so he does not view all existing vaccines as unsafe. 68.80.137.200 (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Is that the same vaccine he blamed for the death of Hank Aaron? That is either untrue, or he is really evil, getting the benefits himself while making others afraid of doing so. Source? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I am not a Rfk supporter, but I think the "anti-vaccine" and "conspiracy theorist" rhetoric is misleading and inaccurate. This seems to be a repeated political talking point of those who oppose him and it has no place on an informational page, especially as a defining characteristic. 2600:1008:A030:172D:D3:DA75:83BD:A52C (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As has been mentioned multiple times on RFK's main article, given that he is the founder and CEO of Children's Health Defense, one of the biggest purveyors of anti-vaccine misinformation, I don't think that's "rhetoric" ... it is simply a fact. Black Kite (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You cannot merely claim the anti-vaccine information is 'misinformation' without demonstrating how it is false. 51.37.254.115 (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

OK dude. Longestview (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

freaking prove it then! Break down everything he has said on there that's false! I want to hear it! 24.116.73.7 (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You haven't read the Children's Health Defense article, I presume. However, I suspect that even if you had read it, you'd still have a problem with it, because it's all a conspiracy by some shadowy people and scientists against anti-vaxxers, am I right? Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I cant believe wikipedia is allowed to throw such slander on a presidential candidate and is then able to lock it up so that it cant be corrected. The fact that it says he pushes anti-vaccine "misinformation" and wikipedia isnt flagging the people who put that up and then correcting it is astounding. Like the guy above said, he's not anti vaccine hes only anti unsafe vaccines. Also if youre gonna say hes spreding misinformation then you better be able to prove that the things hes saying are indeed misinformation, otherwise wikipedia is the one mudslinging and spreading misinformation. Such a disgrace! 24.116.73.7 (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Specific items of misinformation attributed to Kennedy are found in the sources supporting these assertions. For example, the Scientific American piece that reports that: "Kennedy made his name in the anti-vaccine movement in 2005, when he published a story alleging a massive conspiracy regarding thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that had been removed from all childhood vaccines except for some variations of the flu vaccine in 2001. In his piece, Kennedy completely ignored an Institute of Medicine immunization safety review on thimerosal published the previous year; he’s also ignored the nine studies funded or conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that have taken place since 2003". BD2412 T 16:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we are going to keep getting these issues whilst angry people are unable to read the actual scientific evidence and instead base their worldview on nonsense that they have read on social media. It is probably best to simply hat them per WP:NOTFORUM. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Against whom?

He is a spoiler against Biden or against Trump? --95.24.69.178 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If he tops a third of the vote, and the other two fall just below that, then he's a spoiler for both. BD2412 T 22:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

22%

The article needs to mention that never since 1912 a third candidate took 22% at election. Also, that poll has an "other/undecded" option. If we assume that most of those 4% are "undecided" and not "other", Kennedy would be 23% of "decided". The only smilarity in US history is the 1912 election, which this result almost beats. In this opinion poll Kennedy is 61% of Trump's vote. --95.24.69.178 (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Polls are not indicative of actual election results, as the section in question clearly already states. We do not engage in speculations and what-ifs here. Zaathras (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Overall Biases

This is full of biases. I came here to read about his campaign and I am baffled at how terrible this is. Please present his campaign in a neutral light. Within the first paragraph it states “known conspiracy theorist.”Though there are sources, the tone used this this entire article is biased. 47.41.119.2 (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources are generally not used in the lead. The lead introduces, the body expands, whi9ch is where you will find ample citations for the subject's conspiracy theories. Zaathras (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

2024 superbowl ad

February 11, 2024 an advertisement for "Kennedy, Independent in 2024" was shown during the Superbowl. 2605:A601:AC0C:EA00:F8DD:28E3:1526:F674 (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please specify the requested changes in a "change X to Y" format, or specify what addition(s) you wish to be made to the article, and provide a reliable source if appropriate. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to put the "RFK Jr. Version" instead of the original? Or alternatively have both? 47.20.46.230 (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hawaii ballot

Request: can a WP user please provide a WP:RS for RFK Jr.'s ballot access in Hawaii. The map was updated to include Hawaii. Thanks. 2601:189:4102:36D0:59B9:EB4E:F89:9CE8 (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Hawai'i's election office states that Kennedy has petitioned to qualify for ballot access; but he technically hasn't qualified yet, as parties have until March 21 to object to qualification. Longestview (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Ballot access

http://kennedy24.com/ According to the ballot access HQ on his website he qualified for the Nevada ballot 2600:8801:1187:7F00:D56A:2301:EA60:F97A (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Vice-presidential selection

"Kennedy is expected to announce his vice presidential choice in late March 2024." should be changed to "Kennedy is scheduled to announce his choice for Vice President of the United States on March 26, 2024. It has been reported that Aaron Rodgers, Jesse Ventura, Tulsi Gabbard, Rand Paul, and Andrew Yang are being considered for the nomination." Sources: https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/politics/rfk-jr-vice-president-nominee/index.html, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/12/us/politics/rfk-jr-aaron-rodgers-jesse-ventura.html AmericanBaath (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Claim in Wikivoice that Kennedy Jr. is antisemitic

I noticed that an editor inserted into the article a claim in Wikivoice that Kennedy Jr. is antisemitic.

Is there any WP: RS that indicates this? This seems far more like "crackpot territory" than an antisemitic statement. This is further problematic when you realize that WP: BLP applies here. KlayCax (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the section seems to say that his remarks were antisemitic, not necessarily Kennedy himself. The reliable sources used here seem to back that up. Woko Sapien (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2024 - Endorsements

Add endorsement to "since independent section" from [Bill Duke], American actor and film director (source: https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1774226485609685166) Realsource191 (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source. The notability of an endorsement should be one noted in reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Updates to Abortion and Fertility MedicineSection

Hello, the "Abortion and fertility medicine" section under the "Political Positions" tab could be updated to better reflect the latest information and the candidate's actual position on the subject.

CURRENT:

Speaking to reporters at the Iowa State Fair in August 2023, Kennedy expressed support for a national ban on abortion after the first three months. He elaborated further, "Once a child is viable, outside the womb, I think then the state has an interest in protecting the child." A spokesman from his campaign later released a statement saying that Kennedy had misunderstood the question because it had been asked in a noisy and crowded exhibition hall. However, Kennedy confirmed his position: "I believe a decision to abort a child should be up to the women during the first three months of life". Asked if there should be a federal ban on abortion at 15 or 21 weeks, he said "Yes".

Running mate Nicole Shanahan has been a vocal opponent of in vitro fertilization, calling it "one of the biggest lies that’s being told about women’s health today." She has instead advocated for women interested in having children to increase their exposure to sunlight, among other unconventional methods.

UPDATED:

As a candidate for 2024 U.S. President, Kennedy has cited his firm support for bodily autonomy and the judicial principles established in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, arguing abortion should be a legal option for women to best determine for themselves on an individual basis as opposed to government regulation. He has stated a key part of his position is his view that abortion cannot be considered in isolation from support for mothers and families, citing universal free childcare and other economic relief policies as ways to create more hospitable conditions for young families and to reduce the rate of individual abortions. [https://www.kennedy24.com/faq ///https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2023/presidential-candidates-2024-policies-issues/robert-kennedy-jr-abortion/]

Speaking to NBC reporter Ali Vitali at the Iowa State Fair in August 2023, Kennedy described his general belief that the decision to abort a pregnancy should be up to the woman within the first three months. He went on to say, “once a child is viable outside the womb, I think then the state has an interest in protecting that child,” before emphasizing his personal support as fundamentally being in favor for medical freedom and individual rights. Asked if he would sign a federal ban on abortions performed after the first 15 or 21 weeks, if theoretically passed by Congress, he answered “yes.” His campaign later released a statement saying, "Today, Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question posed to him by a NBC reporter in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair....Mr. Kennedy's position on abortion is that it is always the woman's right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion." /// [https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/13/rfk-jr-backs-15-week-federal-ban-on-abortion-00111017 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/13/rfk-jr-backs-15-week-federal-ban-on-abortion-00111017]

In March 2024, Kennedy told Reuters that he thinks abortions are tragic, but that it should be a woman’s right throughout the pregnancy. [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rfk-jr-abortion-vaccines-housing-foreign-policy-2024-03-20/]

Running mate Nicole Shanahan has been a vocal opponent of in vitro fertilization, calling it "one of the biggest lies that’s being told about women’s health today." She cites her personal experience with the procedure as cause for her criticisms, having described her difficulties as an IVF candidate before going on to conceive her child naturally. She also attributes this experience as being the motivation for her years of personal advocacy and financial support of research in reproductive longevity, exploring alternatives to IVF, including the benefits of no-cost interventions such as increased exposure to sunlight. [https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/28/robert-f-kennedy-vice-president-nicole-shanahan-ivf-00149523] JLuzPaz (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Update the Ballot Access Map?

Can someone update the ballot access map, Natural Law Party nominated Robert F Kennedy Jr. as their candidate.

Also, Robert F Kennedy Jr. now has the signatures for the Iowa ballot.

Also, why was Nevada removed? Buildershed (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2024

In the "endorsements" section, Congressman Dennis Kucinich is listed as Kennedy's campaign manager. Kucinich left the position recently but still supports the campaign. So in that section, he should listed as the "former campaign manager" or not given any specific distinction RickStrate2029 (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Good catch! -- M.boli (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2024

Nicole Shanahan and Cenk Uygur should be added to the endorsement section. It is precedent for the running mate to be included in the endorsements, and Cenk Uygur has recently been quoted as endorsing Kennedy (contact me for source if you can't find it). RickStrate2029 (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@RickStrate2029, you do need to provide sources. I am not aware of such a precedent that running mates being automatically considered endorsements; please cite a source for this precedent or quote prior consensus from previous discussions. In the past sources were usually cited for such endorsements (see Pence's endorsement in List of Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign endorsements and Kaine's endorsement in List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign political endorsements for example). As for Cenk Uygur's endorsement, the only two articles I could find are by Fox News and RealClearPolitics, but Fox News is generally unreliable and RCP has no consensus, per WP:RSP. The articles also only say that he is considering voting for Kennedy and it's mostly a feeling of choosing the lesser evil, which doesn't sound like a formal endorsement yet. Liu1126 (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It appears I am mistaken in regards to Cenk Uygur, you found the same source as I did and you're correct, it's only a consideration of support, not full support.

As for Nicole Shanahan, the precedent for adding the running mate in the endorsements sections seems to be debated as of now. See Gary John 2016 presidential campaign endorsements, Ted Cruz 2016 presidential campaign endorsements, Gary Johnson 2012 presidential campaign, and Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign endorsements for reference of examples of inclusion. Since precedent is somewhat unclear, there should likely be a more detailed discussion on whether or not to add Shanahan to the section. RickStrate2029 (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)