This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Name one drug from this guy
name one, just one. Yet he's made billions, where does the money come from? All the people who overpay for their prescription meds. Please spare us the hooplah until we see people actually being helped by a new drug. Steve Brackett (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Steve Brackett: The article talk page is for discussion of how to improve the text of the article page. If you have mainstream published references that support your statement about his business, please provide them along with a draft of what article text you would propose to add or amend to reflect what those sources say. SPECIFICO talk 12:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Foreign affairs
This information was removed with the following edit summary: "some of this new content is duplicative, vague/undefined, or not particularly central/biographically important; discuss at talk if you want to pursue it. Also copy edit".
I think that stating that he considers China to be the biggest threat or that he wants to strengthen relations with India are quite important foreign policy positions. I don't understand why they were removed. @Neutrality:, can you please explain?
Ramaswamy called for stronger relationships with India and less economic dependence on China.[1] He called China the "biggest threat" and warned against a Sino-Russian alliance.[2][3] He called Russian President Vladimir Putin a "craven dictator".[4]
References
- ^ "Indian-American presidential aspirant Vivek Ramaswamy pitches for stronger US-India relationship". Deccan Herald. 30 August 2023.
- ^ "Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy says China is 'biggest threat' against US". First Post. 10 August 2023.
- ^ "Vivek Ramaswamy says Russia needs to pull out of its military alliance with China to counter Beijing". India Today. August 31, 2023.
- ^ "Vivek Ramaswamy wants to offer Vladimir Putin a 'deal' to end war with Ukraine". Sky News. 31 October 2023.
-- Tobby72 (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Pretty vague/general content (what does it mean to "strengthen relations"? How does he want to get to "less economic dependence," and what does that even mean?) We already note that he has said he wants to make concessions to Russia, contending that doing so would weaken China. We mention some of his specific statements, about semiconductors and the like. If he ever said anything specific about trade policy or tariffs, then that might also be worth including. I don't believe these sound bites from interviews add substantive new content that is biographically significant. Neutralitytalk 15:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think it (the stronger relationships with Inida) would be significant enough to include a sentence in the foreign policy; considering the fact that India and China's relations are becoming amenable, it would at least provide a more through picture of his view of China as a threat. I wouldn't say it warrants much more than a sentence or two, though. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that India should be mentioned. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think it (the stronger relationships with Inida) would be significant enough to include a sentence in the foreign policy; considering the fact that India and China's relations are becoming amenable, it would at least provide a more through picture of his view of China as a threat. I wouldn't say it warrants much more than a sentence or two, though. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Vivek's talking point about Russia "agreeing" to drop China has never been specified by him or taken seriously by anyone else that I've seen or read. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
"Promotion of conspiracy theories and falsehoods" violates WP:BLP
I think the sub-topic title and some of the content in this paragraph Violates WP:BLP for Living persons. As we know, WP:BLP is a mandatory and strict WP policy, and making strong unproven charges for a Living person is against Wiki policies. And, Wiki is NOT NEWS, so just because some news article makes a charge, same cannot be put on Wiki page, without giving consideration to WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV neutral language.
Also, I understand that User:Jasper Deng has argued that WP:NPOV does not mean we have to use non-discriminate language. It means we present facts with weight that reflects their coverage in reliable sourcing as per due WP:DUE.
But, this is a Contentious topic, and WP:BLP cannot be ignored or therefore, we need input from more Wiki editors to form a consensus, without edit-warring RogerYg (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
And, Wiki is NOT NEWS, so just because some news article makes a charge, same cannot be put on Wiki page, without giving consideration to WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV neutral language.
- Please first note that "Wiki" is not a correct abbreviation for Wikipedia.
- Next, I cannot see why we should not reflect what the cited sources say. NOTNEWS means we don't write our articles like a newspaper. It doesn't mean we cannot cite news articles. There's nothing about WP:RS that makes news articles unusable as sources for claims about living people. Therefore, nothing is BLP violating about claims about his falsehoods.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ramaswamy certainly has attracted a lot of attention of late by doubling down on the bushwa. It has been widely-reported in reliable sources, Ramaswamy himself endorses this crap. There is no serious argument that this section consists of "unproven charges" and therefore violates BLP. Since the bushwa is gushing in the context of Ramaswamy's campaign, it seems to me the Ramaswamy campaign article deserves the lengthier description, with a summary here. -- M.boli (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- What portion of this section is objectionable? Objection aside, the subtitle is too long. "Promotion of conspiracy theories" is sufficient. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Agree, that subtitle is too long. "Promotion of conspiracy theories" is sufficient.RogerYg (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Have made that change. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Agree, that subtitle is too long. "Promotion of conspiracy theories" is sufficient.RogerYg (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Request inclusion of recent polls in 2024 presidential campaign section.
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)
- @Cmsmith93 No per WP:NOTTHENEWS. Nemov (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Cmsmith93 Done
- Added since Nemov didn't further reply, and seems to have misunderstood WP:NOTTHENEWS. Cortador (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "Months by month polling numbers" is something you made up and nobody has advocated for. Cortador (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "Months by month polling numbers" is something you made up and nobody has advocated for. Cortador (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2024
Change "end birthright citizenship" to "end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants".
Having the sentence be just "end birthright citizenship" is implying a categorically different policy with deep implications that are incorrect since that wasn't what Ramaswamy said. 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)
- 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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2024 (2)
> 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".
===============
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.