Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vivek Ramaswamy 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

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 page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

United States: Presidential elections / Ohio / Cincinnati Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Cincinnati.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

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.

FinalFrontier.003 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Vivek Ramaswamy. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. Freelancer; disclosed here
Jhofferman (talk · contribs) has been paid by Vivek Ramaswamy. Freelancer; disclosed here

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

CommanderMaque (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.
71.67.84.234 (talk · contribs)

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Matt Novak (May 3, 2023). "Wikipedia Editor Says They Were Paid To Change Vivek Ramaswamy's Page". Forbes. Vivek Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur vying to be the Republican candidate for president in 2024, allegedly paid to change the Wikipedia page about him, according to a disclosure made on the community encyclopedia. The changes include scrubbing the fact that Ramaswamy received the Paul & Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans in 2011 and Ramaswamy's role in the Ohio Covid-19 Response Team... Ramaswamy's Wikipedia page is currently flagged as being in dispute for not having a neutral point of view. It's unclear if the paid contributions are what got Ramaswamy's page flagged. Wikipedia editors have started to debate whether Ramaswamy's page should be placed into a protective status in order to minimize alterations made.
Isaac Schorr (May 3, 2023). "Exclusive: Vivek Ramaswamy Paid to Have His Soros Fellowship and Covid-Era Role Scrubbed from Wikipedia Page". Mediaite. Ramaswamy himself has made an intentional effort to conceal his own biography, even paying a Wikipedia editor to remove potentially politically damaging details about his past from his page...The editor's conflict of interest was debated by Wikipedia users and editors after the alterations were made; the reference to Ramaswamy's fellowship was later added back to the page, although his tenure on the Ohio Covid Team remains absent.
Taegan Goddard (May 3, 2023). "Ramaswamy Scrubbed References to Soros Fellowship". Taegan Goddard's Political Wire. Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy paid a Wikipedia editor to remove lines about him receiving a Paul & Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans in 2011.
"Vivek Ramaswamy paid to erase Soros connection from Wikipedia page: report". The Bharat Express News. May 3, 2023.
David Moye (May 3, 2023). "Vivek Ramaswamy Paid To Get Soros Connection Erased From Wikipedia Page: Report". Huffpost.
Brittany Bernstein (August 22, 2023). "Ramaswamy Paid Wikipedia Editor to Delete Reference to Harvard Vaccine Scientist 'Mentor' Days before Announcing Campaign". National Review.
Priyanka Pandey (September 15, 2023). "Vivek Ramaswamy Hired Wikipedia Editors to Remove References to His Soros Fellowship and COVID Work". Inquisitr. There is a current disagreement flag on Ramaswamy's Wikipedia because it lacks objectivity. The paid donations may or may not have triggered the flagging of his page. There has been some discussion among Wikipedia's editors over whether Ramaswamy's article should be protected.
Rhiannon Ruff (March 6, 2024). "Why Wikipedia can be a PR problem for political campaigns". PR Daily. Retrieved March 6, 2024. This all may seem like old news, but the story never changes. Last May, shortly before announcing his candidacy for president, Vivek Ramaswamy paid an editor to remove information on his Wikipedia page that he thought might damage his candidacy.

Request inclusion of recent polls in 2024 presidential campaign section.[edit]

Add the verbiage, "Vivek Ramaswamy polled an average of 4% in national Republican primary polls in December 2023." https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/republican-primary/2024/national

And this could be added to the 'Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign' article as well. Cmsmith93 (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmsmith93 No per WP:NOTTHENEWS. Nemov (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does that qualify as any of those, "Original reporting", "News reports", "Who's who", "Celebrity gossip and diary"? Cmsmith93 (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmsmith93

Done

Added since Nemov didn't further reply, and seems to have misunderstood WP:NOTTHENEWS. Cortador (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cortador It's a trivial piece of routine news information. There's no misunderstanding and no reason to further clarify. This person's poll numbers in a given month isn't central to this biography. It should be removed until there's a consensus to include. Thanks. - Nemov (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polling numbers of a presidential candidate is noteworthy. If you wish for this information to be removed, seek consensus for that. @Cmsmith93 asked you to clarify why you wanted this information to be excluded; stating that there's no reason to clarify is not sufficient. Cortador (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange response. Three of us have have discussed this question. That's not a consensus. I did clarify since you didn't understand my argument. You believe that poll numbers are noteworthy, based on this reasoning every article on a presidential candidate would have month by month poll numbers going on and on because it's routine coverage, correct? Do you really believe those article and this one should have crammed into the article? Nemov (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Months by month polling numbers" is something you made up and nobody has advocated for. Cortador (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have argued that poll numbers from the month of December are noteworthy. There were poll numbers that are reliable sourced from November as well. There will be poll numbers from this month. Do you understand how this falls under routine coverage yet? Nemov (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November's numbers aren't current. If you don't understand that, I can't help you. Cortador (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've rolled back to the status quo until there's consensus to add. So far you haven't really made a policy reason for inclusion other than your opinion that a poll linked to realcearpolitics is noteworthy. I disagree. We'll have to wait for other comments. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own any article on the website. You need to make better arguments and not just undo edits as you please. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Negotiation Cmsmith93 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed I owned an article. The status quo remains until there's a consensus for inclusion. So far I haven't seen a policy based argument other than an editor's opinion about a poll being noteworthy. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "end birthright citizenship" to "end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants".

Having the sentence be just "end birthright citizenship" is implying a categorically different policy. Under Ramaswamy's desired policy, "birthright citizenship" will continue to be the primary way in which the US population grows, through the automatic naturalization of the children of legal immigrants. Npip99 (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. cited source quotes him as saying "“I’ll actually go one step further on this, Abby, is that I don’t think someone just because they’re born in this country, even if they’re a sixth generation American should automatically enjoy all the privileges of citizenship until they’ve actually earned it,” Ramaswamy told CNN’s Abby Phillip." That seems like ending birthright citizenship for all, not just illegal immigrants. If you have another source that shows a different policy position than he expressed in this source, provide it here and reopen this request then Cannolis (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response.

His most recent channels have opined only a restriction of illegal immigrants, some sources to use for citation are

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/27/republican-debate-immigration/

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4227711-ramaswamy-end-birthright-citizenship-2024-debate/

https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1736065455561777334

These date to Sep 27, 2023. The CNN article is from July. It appears the most recent clearly enunciated opinion of Vivek for the campaign is for this to be for illegal immigrants. Whether Wikipedia should include only the most recent statement, or all historical statements, is a decision I can defer (Though, only including the oldest policy opinion is likely not valid). Npip99 (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I withdraw my opinion that we should include both opinions in any form, we should definitively just change "end birthright citizenship" to "end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants", there is no evidence in either interview that he was ever of the opinion of ending birthright citizenship as a policy for anyone but illegal immigrants. Here is a full interview for your viewing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM4UpgZ6sQA

I recommend watching it full, and it includes a variation of the soundbite. It is clear that his opinion has always been: "end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants", and "in order to obtain your full civic rights, you must pass as a civics test". By "sixth generation American", he clearly means 100% of Americans, going back six generations goes back to the early 1800s for most Americans if not the early 1700s for some. His statement is an application across all Americans at any level of immigration generation (Which is every single American other than Native Americans).

In the CNN quote, "enjoy all of the privileges of citizenship until they've actually earned it", that isn't debating their status as a citizen, this is debating their privileges. This is confirmed by watching the linked YouTube video. Npip99 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Ramaswamy's statements on this are campaign sound bites. "Most recent" and "oldest policy opinion" are meaningless verbiage, this isn't an evolving policy debate. And there is considerable uncertainty as to what his proposal would mean. He often says that the 14th Amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants, which is decidedly contrary to current constitutional interpretation, so what does that mean? Would one out-of-status grandmother be enough to cancel a person's citizenship? He has certainly implied that. Changing the phrase "to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants" without finding reliable sources to explain the possible meanings of a campaign slogan would be beyond the scope of this article. And it simply obfuscates what is undeniably the main point: he wants to cancel an enshrined right. -- M.boli (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This simple answer is this should reflect what reliable sources says with due weight. The ramifications of the policy aren't for us to speculate about and that falls under original research. Nemov (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's sharpens my point, I in no way suggested OR. If we add the simple-minded "for illegal immigrants" it might require reliable sources to say what it could possibly mean, which is a thicket that we shouldn't be entering, far beyond the scope of this article.

Perhaps if we do add "for illegal immigrants" we would add reliable sources saying that it isn't the simple idea it sounds like. To illustrate: if Ramaswamy were to campaign-promise to "roll the illegal immigrants off the edge of the flat Earth" we would be obligated to add a reference saying the Earth is not flat. -- M.boli (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that his policy is to "end birthright citizenship" is categorically false, and cannot continue as it stands. How we word it in a way that's neutral takes care, it's not our job to do original research, but it has to change to something else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM4UpgZ6sQA

Here an interview on the topic. Watching this interview, "end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants" appears entirely sufficient, and is certainly the closest we can get without original research in my opinion. If you have any opinions against that wording, I'd recommend just offering exactly the way you would word it rather than debating any shortcomings with my suggestion. I.e., a suggestion in the form of "Replace X with Y", not just, "Change X". Npip99 (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Most recent" and "oldest policy opinion" are meaningless verbiage because politicians will change opinion or change meaning. In that case, we should just enunciate both. A simple fix would be

> end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, and at one point even said end birthright citizenship for all.

From research into sources, there are numerous sources for illegal immigrants, but his statement for all comes from only a single CNN Interview. We can certainly include both.

> And it simply obfuscates what is undeniably the main point: he wants to cancel an enshrined right.

The response to above is simply the same reason why I think this needs to be addressed. There is no honest way to combine "birthright for all" and "birthright for illegal immigrants" into a single point, as these two policies are materially different in a large way. We can't combine them in any meaningful way and his opinion on each potential policy has to be treated separately. Npip99 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utter blather. Nobody said anything about "birthright for all." Just like "curtail free speech" wouldn't by default mean "no speech for anybody." However see change of mind below. -- M.boli (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good.

Response: "curtail" specifically means, reduce not destroy. "end" doesn't. I believe a very high percentage of readers will interpret "end birthright citizenship" as "birthright citizenship no longer exists in this country", I personally think that's the correct way to interpret that phrase but even if it's not it's a reasonable way to interpret it. Hence, "birthright for all." Npip99 (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change of mind: It seems this ill-defined slogan "end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants" has been used so much that it is part of a Wikipedia write-up: Birthright citizenship in the United States#Opposition to birthright citizenship. Donald Trump even said he would do so by executive order, although that never happened. So I've changed my mind: it could make sense to put "end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants" provided it is properly wikilinked to the above section, which explains more fully. That writeup describes quite a few different definitions of what it might mean, by the way. -- M.boli (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Makes sense to me.

Full interview happens here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1352

Actually, for an accurate wording, "end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants". So that would be the goal. Npip99 (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time Not done. Go find secondary sources. This doesn't include YouTube or Twitter. GMG ^talk 14:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2024 (2)[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

> Invoking September 11 conspiracy theories, he asked whether "federal agents were on the planes" that hit the Twin Towers during the September 11 attacks.

should be replaced with:

> Invoking September 11 conspiracy theories, Vivek has called for an investigation into how many federal agents were on the planes of the September 11 attacks; however, he said that he "has no reason to think it was anything other than zero".

===============[edit]

At the absolute minimum, the current sentence should be replaced with:

> Invoking September 11 conspiracy theories, Vivek has called for an investigation into how many federal agents were on the planes of the September 11 attacks.

Explanation: Vivek didn't just "ask whether federal agents were on the planes", so the current summarization of the article doesn't make any sense. The corrected sentence is a very clear, precise, and equally concise representation of what Vivek actually said. Vivek's explicit request is that an investigation is done and the number is revealed.

However, leaving it like this is still technically misleading, as it has a strong possibility of making the reader incorrectly think that Vivek's personal belief is that federal agents were indeed on the plane, when that is not his belief. By being a bit less concise, and including a quote, we prevent this issue.

--- Npip99 (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic. The cited Guardian story quotes him as saying I think it is legitimate to say how many police, how many federal agents, were on the planes that hit the Twin Towers ... Maybe the answer is zero. It probably is zero for all I know, right? I have no reason to think it was anything other than zero." So he didn't "ask" and he didn't only mention "federal agents" and he thinks maybe|probably|um none. But in that bit he isn't invoking conspiracy theories either and I believe there's some style note that we don't refer solely by first name, so I'd suggest: Ramaswamy believes it would be legitimate to say how many police or federal agents were on the planes that hit the Twin Towers during the September 11 attacks, though he suggests the answer "probably is zero for all I know, right?" Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the current statement is problematic, in part for reasons @Peter Gulutzan noted above. The spat over did-he-or-didn't-he one time suggest federal agents were on planes seems unimportant, it hasn't carried forward in the campaign for the presidency. That one-off spat was the source of the sentence in this article.

Regardless of that one-off incident, Ramaswamy does repeatedly raise the idea of conspiracies. For example from a debate in early December: The government lied to us for 20 years about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11. So maybe shorten it to say that Ramaswamy invokes conspiracy theories around the September 11 incident and add a reference to what I just quoted. -- M.boli (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mystery surrounding what the Saudi's knew before that attack isn't really conspiracy theory territory. [1][2] Are their sources where he's jumped to a conclusion on that topic? Nemov (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Chane

He expressed support for an inheritance tax

with

He had expressed support for an inheritance tax in a thought experiment^[1], but since starting his campaign has been against it.^[2]

References

^ https://kscj.com/2023/09/04/ramaswamy-proposes-major-tax-changes/
^ https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/ramaswamy-dynamic-debate-performance-incoherent-economic-agenda

207.96.32.81 (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Current wording supported by Wall Street Journal; in light of this the sourcing on your proposed changes falls short. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 11:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota DFL[edit]

DFL..democratic farm labor...the twin cities mpls / St paul have hijacked the state...one of the few states west of the mississippi river that is blue in the midwest...they dont represent the workers anymore...on Hannity you said..multi national diversity..thats America....please find a way to take this stae back...Fairmont,Brainerd,any Minnesota river vally city...the iron range...waseca... 65.128.224.157 (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://kscj.com/2023/09/04/ramaswamy-proposes-major-tax-changes/

[2] ttps://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/ramaswamy-dynamic-debate-performance-incoherent-economic-agenda

[1]

[2]