Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign

Public Reception: Addition of "Support from Tech Industry Executives" Section?

A significant amount of support for RFK's campaign has come from individuals in the tech industry (Dorsey, Sacks, Musk (softly), and of course his VP Nicole Shanahan. This might warrant the creation of a "Support from Tech Industry Executives" section in the public reception section, thoughts? RickStrate2029 (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent endorsements

RickStrate2029, please note that the recently added endorsements that you re-added do not meet the threshold outlined in WP:Political endorsements.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems there has been some debate on whether or not a lot of endorsements meet the threshold outlined in WP:Political endorsements, perhaps a more nuanced discussion on the threshold is necessary.

To any and all readers, if you have an opinion on whether or not the recently added endorsements qualify, feel free to comment. RickStrate2029 (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I've explained why these edits don't meet WP:ENDORSE on your talk page and you've only responded by vaguely saying there is a lot of room for interpretation. The policy seems unambiguous, can you explain where you see room for interpretation? Jamedeus (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent Endorsements Inclusion Survey

There have been several discussions on which people should and shouldn't be included according to the WP:ENDORSE criteria, and a clear consensus on the issue does not exist. Feel free to vote below on whether or not the statements of Lincoln Chafee, David Stockman, Stephen Peace, and others in regards to RFK qualify as endorsements. RickStrate2029 (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Although I will not edit the endorsements section personally until a consensus has been established. RickStrate2029 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment RickStrate2029 stated that "a clear consensus on the issue does not exist." This is incorrect, as the consensus is laid out at Wikipedia:Political endorsements. The supplied sources do not meet that threshold, as has been explained multiple times by myself and another editor. A survey doesn't mean you can change the existing requirements. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No. As already noted WP:ENDORSE is the consensus, and you still have not offered any substantive argument for why your sources meet this standard. After violating 3RR (5 reversions today by my count) you've moved on to refusal to get the point. Jamedeus (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No for Stockman and Chafee, neutral for Peace. I'm including the references.

The critera in WP:ENDORSE include both clarity of endorsement and independent coverage. One point of independent coverage is to establish that the endorsement is notable. If Joe Blow self-publishes an endorsement, but nobody cares, we don't treat it as encyclopedia-worthy.

• No for Stockman. Stockman's essay endorses Stockman's economic policy. In one paragraph he opines that RFK Jr. is the only candidate who could plausibly choose to campaign on Stockman's ideas. That's it.

This fails clear endorsement. Stockman never endorses any candidates, or even says he will vote for Jr. He never says Jr. has taken Stockman's advice and never engages with Jr.'s positions at all. The headline is deceptive in that Jr. is quite tangential to the article, mentioned only once. (I think it was me who added this reference to the wikipage. My mistake!)

• No for Chafee. It seems all coverage comes from a laudatory quote sourced to an RFK Jr. campaign press release. We don't have the context of Chafee's quote, which was used not as an endorsement but as an argument for including RFK Jr. in the debate.

This fails independent coverage and leaves clear endorsement unclear. An out of context quote published by the campaign itself for another purpose is far from adequate.

• Neutral for Peace. I think Peace's essay is unambiguous in endorsing Jr. He is "voting" for Jr. (in the headline), "supporting" Jr. in this election (in the body of the article), and the point of the article is to explain why in his view Jr. is the superior candidate to vote for. Even absent the word endorse I think it passes muster according to criterion 3.

I'm undecided about independent coverage. This endorsement may not be notable. I didn't find any news article Stephen Peace, former California politician, endorses RFK Jr. If the L.A. Times, e.g., had published Peace's essay, I think that would qualify to show that somebody cares about Peace's endorsement. What is unclear to me is whether the niche publication Independent Voter News suffices. Is it far-enough away from being a self-published source? I'm neutral.

That's all. I responded at length in part because I wanted to clarify my own thoughts. And I hope readers will see why WP:ENDORSE is the consensus, and in fact it is quite helpful for deciding. -- M.boli (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

References