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)