Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit requests from COI editor

I'm a declared COI editor starting to work on Vivek Ramaswamy's page. I have not worked on his page prior to this message. I'm hoping to reshape the page and work with editors to remove the tag. I'm requesting one edit at the moment.

Extended content

Axovant Sciences is one of the many subsidiaries that Vivek founded and it does not make sense to give this priority or for it to have its own sentence. Therefore, I'd like to change the following. I've added references for the three subsidiaries that would be new to the page. Current wording: He is also the founder of Axovant Sciences, a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company focusing on treatments for dementia, and the founder of other subsidiaries including: Altavant[1], Aruvant[2], Axovant, Datavant, Dermavant, Enzyvant, Myovant, Urovant[3], Genevant[4], Immunovant[5], Metavant[6], and Respivant[7]. Requested wording: He is the founder of many subsidiaries including: Axovant Sciences, Altavant[1], Aruvant[2], Axovant, Datavant, Dermavant, Enzyvant, Myovant, Urovant[3], Genevant[4], Immunovant[5], Metavant[6], and Respivant,[7] Sinovant, and Alyvant. References

Thank you for your help, FinalFrontier.003 (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply 27-JAN-2019

Information should not be included in this article solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight, whereas the listing of each and every company spun off from Roivant does not merit this added weight — especially since this information is already listed in the Roivant article — which the present article already has WikiLinks to. Regards,  Spintendo  12:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Question about Vivek Ramaswamy page

Moved from User talk:Spintendo

 –  Spintendo  13:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo,

I appreciate all of the assistance that you've offered for Roivant Sciences and Vivek Ramaswamy's pages to date. I understand why your most recent edit to Vivek's page, to remove the long list of companies, was made and it certainly made sense. I wanted to get an understanding from you about how to work on the Vivek page to get the tag removed (contributor to this article has a close connection). I wasn't involved with the company when the tag was put on and I work for them with a clear COI - is there a way to move ahead to get it removed? Thanks for your assistance in the matter, FinalFrontier.003 (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Reply 15-FEB-2019

• @FinalFrontier.003: It is recommended that, as a courtesy, you first try asking the editor who assigned the template — in this case, the administrator NeilN — in order to find out from them if it can be removed. Since they placed the template, they are in the best position to know whether or not the issues which caused its placement have been corrected. You may contact them by placing a new message on their talk page.
• In the unlikely event that you do not hear back from them after a reasonable amount of time, please contact me at my talk page or the article's talk page. Thank you!
  Regards,  Spintendo  13:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Notes

thank you @Spintendo:! I'm writing to the other editor now. FinalFrontier.003 (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Request edit

Hi @Spintendo: I contacted the editor, NeilN, who placed the COI tag on the page and I received this message back on his talk page where I placed my question: "FinalFrontier.003, NeilN is on an extended break from Wikipedia, so he will not see or answer your question. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)" I am, therefore, asking again if we can discuss having the COI tag removed from this page. The page was tagged almost two years ago and it does not seem to be an issue any longer. I am a declared COI editor working for Vivek only in the last few months. Thanks for any assistance you can offer. FinalFrontier.003 (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

As I see it, the section on the subject's career focuses on the subject's work, particularly, how successful it is. This is information which was added by editors who had not declared a COI but whom a COI is suspected. ( The error is mine: The template is not an undisclosed COI maint. template, but rather, a simple COI template.) As this information still exists in the article, please elaborate upon what it is about the page that seems to no longer warrant the COI tag.  Spintendo  14:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Content changes for Career section and addition of Recognition section

I am a declared COI editor and I'm working to get the COI tag removed from Vivek's page. I understand that in order to do so, I need to get the language in the career section changed so that it no longer reflects the work that the undeclared COI editor or editors did. I am proposing completely new language for the Career section and an addition of a Recognition section. I appreciate any asisstance editors can offer.

Extended content

1. I would like to propose replacing all content in the career section with this content: Ramaswamy started his career as a hedge fund manager at QVT Financial in New York and became a partner in 2013. In 2014, he founded and became the chief executive officer of Roivant Sciences, a pharmaceutical company that builds drug and health care subsidiaries in various stages of development. In 2015, Forbes estimated that Roivant was worth $3.5 billion. As of late 2018, Ramaswamy and Roivant employed over 750 scientists and executives around the world. 2. In addition, I'd like to create a section below Career called Recognition and add these two sentences there: Ramaswamy was featured on the cover of Forbes in September 2015. He was part of the Forbes 30 under 30 list and was biopharma’s youngest chief executive when he started Roivant Sciences. References

Thank you, FinalFrontier.003 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Just want to clarify that the template in question is not an undisclosed template. It is a simple COI template, so the issue is not about the additions of text from undisclosed editors, but rather, the additions having come from editors who are under a conflict of interest. Sorry if there was confusion over that point.  Spintendo  14:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Maintenance template removed  Spintendo  14:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

New edit request

I have one request as a COI editor at this time.

Current wording: In the career section there is a sentence that says "“Ramaswamy worked at QVT Financial from 2007 to 2014, where he was a partner and co-managed the firm’s biotech portfolio.”

Requested addition: After this sentence I'd like to add context to his work there: "During this time, he invested in companies developing antiviral drugs, including for the cure of hepatitis C."

I look forward to hearing feedback. FinalFrontier.003 (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 16-APR-2019

  Edit request declined  

• The provided sources state that the hepatitis C drug was developed through the efforts of 4 entities: William Symonds, Pharmasset, Gilead, and the investments of QVT — of which Ramaswamy was an analyst/partner. The request posits Ramaswamy as partner in QVT as the sole justification for being able to attach his name to that drug's development, while simultaneously discounting (in the requested prose) the roles of the other entities by not mentioning them. Looking at the sources for verification, only Forbes provides somewhat of a timeline — and from that, the salience with which Ramaswamy inbues his role is not evident. That's because his efforts were not in isolation — they occurred concomitant to other entities' roles. A claim to have bankrolled the cure for hep C alone, as this claim is worded, requires exceptional sourcing to verify it.

Regards,  Spintendo  09:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• I have been asked to update the page I previously edited. The paid relationship was previously declared and remains on my userpage. The changes will primarily be the addition of new material, including additional publications and expanded book sections, including critical reception. Everything will be extensively sourced. I may also do some reformatting of the Career section for clarity.:

Jhofferman (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, you will need to request changes here for review and use the {{request edit}} tag to have someone review them. I am marking this as addressed for now since no clear edit has been proposed from what I can tell. Best, Spencer^T•C 22:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Religion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is Ramaswamy a practicing Hindu? I just read an article that mentioned that he is a vegetarian (as many Hindus are), but the article didn’t explicitly state his religious affiliation. 2600:1014:B05F:669E:84E7:38D6:A1FE:60F3 (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I did some digging and found that he spoke at a gala held by a Hindu advocacy group. However, one of the other speakers at the event is Muslim, so that doesn’t necessarily prove Ramaswamy is a Hindu. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:EBA2 (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, we will not make any statements regarding Ramaswamy's faith without the relevant source - a direct statement from the man himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I see that we now have a source in which Ramaswamy self-identifies as Hindu by faith. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Junior Tennis claims

The article has an unsourced statement that the subject was a nationally ranked junior tennis player. I attempted to confirm this by searching the internet and found no evidence that this is true. Interestingly, I found no evidence that he competed in high school or college tennis. https://www.ohsaa.org/sports/boystennis/past-results https://gocrimson.com/documents/2022/7/17/MTEN_Record_Book_2021-22.pdf While it is certainly possible that he did not compete for his schools, this would certainly merit investigation. 71.88.60.253 (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This is now sourced to a New Yorker profile. Unless and until we see anything in WP:RS to the contrary, we must assume it is correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do you have to assume it. The New Yorker story cites no authority for it either and the internet is devoid of any supporting documentation. Does Wikipedia policy allow something to be taken as gospel because a PR team has repeated a claim over and over? 2601:182:B80:8F70:1420:B93F:DB51:8A87 (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Journalist rarely cite their sources, and we have no expectation that they do so. And frankly, if this is a PR-team invention, it seems a rather trivial one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the George Santos lies, I think that even trivial background lies are important. Thanks for your hard work. 24.151.28.11 (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Published Works" Section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Maybe it's just me, but the "Published Works" section of the article sounds very much like an advertisement for Ramaswamy's works. At the very least, I have never seen another person's Wikipedia page with their published works listed looking like how it does here 2603:6080:B207:AE70:138B:67C9:77A4:D40C (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The section needs major work, along with the rest of the article. I'd move notable reviews from notable sources to the bio section where we talk about the books, cut less notable reviews, note the negative reviews instead of spinning them positively (like the current version), and then have a list of the books like we normally do for authors. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that the editor who added the book reviews admits to having been paid by Vivek Ramaswamy to contribute to his Wikipedia article hopefully another editor can come in and make it more neutral in content. 2603:6080:B207:AE70:138B:67C9:77A4:D40C (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Per this correct comment I tagged the article for maintenance with the paid contributions tag. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It should probably be incorporated into the body, but it's not entirely uncommon for works to have subsections devoted to them that included commentary and reviews from peers (e.g. philosophers, historians). However those are usually balanced whereas the section here would prima facie have an undue amount of praise. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the fact that the reviews are only positive ones that concerns me. It seems very biased in Mr. Ramaswamy's favor. Looking at the articles history, it also seems like they were put in the article by a user who has admitted to being paid by Mr. Ramaswamy to write for him on Wikipedia. Which certainly doesn't help any bias concerns 2603:6080:B207:AE70:138B:67C9:77A4:D40C (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia manipulation

He has apparently paid at least one person to remove details about his Soros Fellowship from Wikipedia. This seems newsworthy, but I'm not sure where to include it. It calls into question the reliability of the entire article. Maybe some kind of protection is needed? https://www.mediaite.com/politics/exclusive-vivek-ramaswamy-paid-to-have-his-soros-fellowship-and-covid-era-role-scrubbed-from-wikipedia-page/ Davidmsterns (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing and point this out. The page needs to be completely re-evaluated. conman33 (. . .talk) 17:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't protect articles because of bad content, we rectify it. As for re-evaluation, I'd say it was ongoing. The article has changed substantially since the edits referred to in the Mediaite piece, in my opinion at least much for the better. Further impartial eyes on the article are of course a good thing though, and anyone is free to offer their opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

At least two paid contributors are noted here on at the top of the talk page and if we identify anymore we can list them here. However, if media outlets start reporting on the paid contributions we do have an issue of if that should be mentioned in the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, media outlets *are* reporting on it. This information is all contained in the Mediaite article cited above and has also now been reported on by Forbes, I've also seen mentions on MSNBC I think. What I find particularly problematic is the following

• the editor removed the mention of the subject being Hindu did so with the edit summary of "Deleted "Ramaswamy identifies as a Hindu" at subject's request" which indicates subject contacted the editor somehow but there is no record of this contact on the editor's talk page or elsewhere within Wikipedia. It is indicated by editor's user talk that they are a paid editor but that info was posted after the fact.
• Same editor removed the Soros Fellowship information with the edit summary of "Deleted extraneous material re fellowship".
• Same editor removed the Ohio COVID information with the edit summary of "Minor revision of description of Chapter Medicare and deletion of COVID Response Team service, at subject's request" which, again, indicates the subject of the article contacted this particular editor off-Wikipedia. The only issue I have with the source/the cite is its possibly biased reporting but, then again, I have been unable to find any listing of the members (either as individuals or corporations) of the state of Ohio's Covid Response Team so the issue of the information being deleted might be moot though the paid-editing/COI is possibly not. Shearonink (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Shearonink, but this isn't the best place to deal with any conflicts that editor "Jhofferman" as identified in the media, may have. See, e.g.: Exclusive: Vivek Ramaswamy Paid to Have His Soros Fellowship and Covid-Era Role Scrubbed from Wikipedia Page. --Bejnar (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I think all of these have now been restored to the article citing the Forbes article about their removal. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I added a short passage on the issue to the campaign section. Tried to keep it as neutral and brief as possible. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

As this has now hit the media I've raised it at WP:ANI#User:Jhofferman accused of paid editing at Vivek Ramaswamy. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

TulsaPoliticsFan on 25 March 2023 added at the talk-page top that Jhofferman was employed by Vivek Ramaswamy. I believe that was premature. One must assume that Jhofferman thought it was Vivek Ramaswamy, but is there confirmation from anywhere? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

He self declared the connection. I suppose @Jhofferman could have lied about the employment, but I thought with paid contributors the self declaration was enough to add the paid editor notice to alert other editors. I do have to admit I was not expecting a Forbes article when I added the template. If a self-declaration of paid editing is not enough to add the talk page template, what is the threshold for adding it? We're unlikely to get literal receipts from the editor so what is the line here? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

His campaign defends the edits, so that confirms they ordered them. "Vivek Ramaswamy Campaign Insists Wikipedia Revisions Weren’t A ‘Scrub’". Also, the WP article has "paid an editor to alter his Wikipedia page to appear more favorable to political conservatives before announcing his campaign by temporarily removing references". That implies it was meant to be a "temporary" removal. The Soros Foundation text was restored by this edit by another editor. The removal was only temporary in the sense that all of Wikipedia is temporary. So I have deleted that word as misleading. (I am not being paid by anyone to do this.) 27.96.195.3 (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't access that Huffpost article but I see it was reproduced on yahoo.com. So yes, as of yesterday there is confirmation from the Ramaswamy organization, and JHofferman has clarified that "his assistant" made the contact. I won't quibble about whether the employer was the campaign staff rather than Mr Ramaswamy himself, I thank you and TulsaPoliticsFan, whose edit is shown to be justifiable. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I just removed the content in the article on this (which I read about on huffpost) per WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NAVELGAZING. Stick with the "mentioned in media" template on the talkpage. For a WP:OTHERCONTENT comparison, see Talk:Emily_St._John_Mandel#RFC:_attempt_to_correct_the_Wikipedia_article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss the merits of this, but deleting the entire COI section seems a bit rash. Especially considering this a US presidential candidate potentially manipulating Wikipedia to gain an electoral advantage.--Woko Sapien (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, it's a newsflash from this week (May 3). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the fact that his spokesperson is now blaming Ron DeSantis for amplifying the story makes me strongly doubt this will just disappear quietly. Woko Sapien (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Time will tell. Most WP-media-things do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The section was probably too big and I think you're pointing to the right policies we should be considering here, but I'm not sure you're going to get the same consensus result as Emily St. John Mandel. They weren't running for president when the news broke; a divorce is much more personal than editing work experience, etc. I think a brief mention in the campaign section (not in its own subsection) is probably worth mentioning. Alternatively, if consensus is to remove it here, I think there is another question of whether mention on Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign is warranted. That page is specific to his campaign and this is largely campaign related so it may be better covered there if its too trivial for inclusion in his biography. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Those were exactly my thoughts when I added the COI section to his campaign article (since it's directly linked to his presidential campaign). I think it's perfectly germane to have the more detailed account there, and I'm tempted to revert anyone who erases it. That said, I agree that a sentence or two mentioning it could be warranted here in his main article. Woko Sapien (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Mandel wasn't trying to manipulate Wikipedia, but to correct factually inaccurate info in her BLP, a goal I'm very sympathetic to.

Though I also don't think the case for inclusion here is obvious. You're right that there's a bit of a WP:NAVELGAZING aspect, and it's unknown whether this will pass WP:10YT. Maybe it will, due to the Streisand effect. Right now I'm undecided — DFlhb (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading mw:Who Wrote That? wrong, it seems like just about the only surviving edits made by Jhofferman are in the "Strive Asset Management" section. The section seems roughly fine, both in terms of sourcing and tone. The problematic edits (removal of Hindu, removal of Soros fellowship, COVID response team membership) all seem to have been reverted. Any outstanding concerns? DFlhb (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Editor disagreement on candidate's position on jury's judgment on Trump for sexual abuse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have attempted to make an edit to the page to add the candidate's position on the verdict against Trump. I used a direct quote from the candidate published by Fox News. I consider the candidates position of vital interest to those who don't believe sexual abuse is a joke. Do you think this should be included in the candidate's political positions?

</ref> Regarding the 2023 jury verdict against Trump for sexual abuse, his position was "this seems like just another part of the establishment’s anaphylactic response".

Pbmaise (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed it because soundibite quotes aren't political positions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

A candidate's position regarding this, and potential coming indictments and prosecutions of Trump, are not casual passing thoughts. Candidates have an opportunity to affirm the American criminal and civil justice system, or can kowtow to Trump's claims that the justice system and "establishment" is an enemy. Many other GOP leaders including Mitt Romney have already come out with statements that contend this jury's verdict is further evidence that Trump is unfit for office. Instead of making a similar statement, this candidate has stood by Trump. Pbmaise (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? We base content on what published reliable sources have to say on a subject, and not on a contributor's own opinions regarding 'kowtowing' etc, and until such sources chose to comment, we don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind this page is primarily a biography and we're summarizing his campaign on this page and will not be able to go into detail on everything. However, there is the Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign page where it is more appropriate to discuss details of the campaign. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you excellent idea. The candidates position on Trump is indeed more suited for the campaign page. Please consider this dispute resolved. Thank you TuslaPolitics Pbmaise (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Independent/outside editor

This BLP is a bit messy with multiple article-level tags, including allegations of some content may have come from paid editors.

Today was my first interaction with this article. I started a process of verifying some of the statements in the source citations; and have left a temporary tag on the ones I verified.

I am independent from the subject of this article. Moreover, I an an unaffiliated voter in US elections and not registered in any party. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion is not merged. Supporters argued that SIGCOV of Ramaswamy's campaign is lacking, but opposers responded by noting Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign has enough coverage to be considered notable. A sizeable number of editors (including OP, some opposers, and all supporters) argued that the facts have a reasonable chance of changing in the future, so this result should not be construed to discourage another discussion later down the line. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 00:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign into Vivek Ramaswamy and leaving behind a redirect. I think that the content in the campaign can easily be explained within the biographical article for the foreseeable future, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the candidate’s main article. It is not clear whether the campaign will obtain enough note down the road to warrant its own article, but it is not useful to have a stubby/duplicative article at this moment. I am not opposed to a future spinning-off/re-creation of the campaign article if there later becomes sufficiently more to write about the campaign, but for now I believe the stubby-article on the campaign serves no use and there is not enough to expand the article beyond what is now contained in it. I am in the process of making similar requests for some other 2024 campaign articles. SecretName101 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Changed description from stub to "stubby"

• Support per rationale of SecretName101, with no prejudice against restoring the article should significant coverage of Ramaswamy's campaign increase enough to warrant it. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, these nominations seem to have multiplied. This candidate has and continues to receive sustained media coverage and reputably sourced support, and candidate pages for credible major party candidates are the rule rather than the exception for Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support, this would follow similar precedents set by Michael Bennet 2020 presidential campaign, John Hickenlooper 2020 presidential campaign, and Tim Ryan 2020 presidential campaign with the option of de-merging the article should it become necessary later down the road. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, the campaign is an independently notable and well-sourced legal entity, and follows the precedents of numerous articles on similarly notable campaigns. It is also unfortunate to have multiple discussions on similar subjects likely to result in inconsistent outcomes. BD2412 T 20:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Not a stub. Since "Stub" and "stub-article" are major points in the nomination even though this is not a stub, and several of the other nominated campaign pages are not stubs, please consider striking the words (coding: striking the words) from the nominations? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is in good shape. I believe it's too early to consider a merge and it's only fair to consider merging once the primary season starts or when the campaign has been suspended. --2601:249:8E00:420:B93B:A3A7:4E32:53B2 (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per BD2412. Unnecessary and not beneficial to merge here. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Wait until the primaries begin or when he drops out. The article looks good enough to merit its own article in the meantime. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the arguments raised above. Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now The article seems to be able to stand on its own. We can always merge further down the road. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the campaign is notable, there are large numbers of reliable sources that talk about it and his candidacy is routinely included in virtually every poll taken regarding the primary since he announced his candidacy.XavierGreen (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Being notable means it can have mention and description on the project. Not that it is extensive enough to warrant an independent article. SecretName101 (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on the ground that other pages like Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign clearly exist and are just as notable or not. I think this page should stay as it us. plus, regardless of any other pages, this page is notable on its own, and worthy of its own page independent of a merge into the main Vivek page i think. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  On the ground that an incumbent president's reelection campaign as a major party nominee/general election runner-up has an article? That's a wild stretch even in the realm of Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. SecretName101 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, you are unilaterally deciding that Wikipedia will de facto endorse which campaigns are worth reading about. We absolutely do not do that. Even if that is not your intent, your selective nominations will create the perception that Wikipedia has decided that Trump, DeSantis, and Biden are the candidates. BD2412 T 01:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's not at all what is happening. If anything, a counter argument exists that creating un-needed articles on lesser campaigns that have little of note to include in a separate campaign article is choosing to elevate/promote those candidates. SecretName101 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now It is notable on its own and there are sufficient WP:RS and coverage so far. Let's see how far his candidacy goes and if coverage continues. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It is notable on its own and there are sufficient WP:RS coverage. He is number 3 as of July 2023; and being considered as major Presidential candidate.

1. How Vivek Ramaswamy Became A Major Presidential Candidate https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/vivek-ramaswamy-2024-republican-primary/

   RogerYg (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - The campaign has received WP:SIGCOV with WP:RS and is notable. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per above. - Relinus (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Activist"

Some editor has changed the lead adding activist in the lead which is poorly sourced and henced removed as per WP:BLP policy. {"entrepreneur, activist, and a candidate.."} It may be mentioned in the body with relevant context, but not in the lead sentence. RogerYg (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

QVT

I've reverted this diff for three reasons. First, the edit summary makes no sense (nothing in the text was "defamatory" or "opinion"). Second, these edits take out the part that actually explains how the content is biographically noteworthy. If it were just that the hedge fund for whom Ramaswamy worked invested in Shkreli's biotech company Retrophin, that probably would not be noteworthy. The biographical significance is in Ramaswamy's personal relationship with, and views regarding, Shkreli — all of which are from Ramaswamy's own interview and book, plus the coverage. Third, the phrasing change (to "Ramaswamy's hedge fund firm") introduces an unhelpful ambiguity: it could be read as saying that Ramaswamy owned QVT, when it fact it seems he an employee (albeit a senior employee). Neutrality^talk 16:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Neutrality, I appreciate most of your edits and thank you for your good work on this page, but I kindly disagree with this revert, as I think this case there was a misreading of the source, and it was defamatory implying that Vivek called a shady investor his friend, which is not verified.

I agree with the edit by WhinyTheYounger −127‎ removing "friend" reference — the source states Shkreli called Ramaswamy a friend, not the other way around, and also notes that Shkreli demanded cash from POLITICO for further comment — relying solely on Shkreli's statement seems undue.

We all need to take WP:BLP more seriously, as Wikipedia is Not News. Thanks again for the good work on this page. RogerYg (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

My concern was over the quotation of the friend line in Wikivoice. Usually, X calling Y a friend is more or less proof enough that X and Y are friends. Shkreli in the POLITICO article itself makes it pretty clear he is operating in bad faith (as he seems to do generally) and that the "friends" comment came from a quip in a single podcast episode. The article even concedes that "Shkreli may have overstated matters." I am not sure it is appropriate to elevate the "friends" quote given those pretty significant caveats. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 15:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the current article text as it now stands, with that edit. Neutrality^talk 16:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Democracy

00 = optimistic, opinions. This is a new political party. It is called the O O. The main platform of this party is TO abolish the presidency and Senate of the United States. They are both the obstructionists and dangerous to our country. 174.29.47.235 (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs a candidate "freeze" policy

Honestly, these arguments are a waste of human time and server space. Wikipedia articles on presidential candidates should be frozen as soon as they declare their candidacy, short a court conviction. Tallard (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "frozen"? This seems to completely neuter the benefits of Wikipedia for topics such as this. Maximilian775 (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I would take a look at WP:NO-PREEMPT as a reason that will not happen. As for whether it should happen, closing an article would prevent the growth of the Wikipedia. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Upgrade content assessment to B?

After reading through the article and comparing to when it was originally rated (2023-02-22), the article has grown quite a bit, has improved the MOS adherence, and I feel that it meets all of the criteria for a B. Does anyone have any objections or other thoughts? - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead has a heavy use of quotations, could be toned down a bit?

The lead for this page uses no less than 7 quotations to describe Ramaswamy's stances. As it currently reads:

Ramaswamy rose to prominence in conservative circles as an "anti-woke" activist. He started his campaign claiming that the United States is in the middle of a "national identity crisis", which according to him is precipitated by "new secular religions", such as "woke-ism", "climate-ism", "covid-ism", and "gender ideology". He is also a critic of ESG initiatives.

This seems like a pretty heavy use of them, and could be toned down a bit in my opinion. Here is my proposed rewriting:

Ramaswamy rose to prominence in conservative circles as an "anti-woke" activist. During his campaign, he has argued that the United States is in the middle of a "national identity crisis", and is an opponent of ESG & DEI initiatives, affirmative action, critical race theory, and secularism.

Does this seem like a fair rewording of the opening lead?

If so, I believe an additional sentence could also be added to summarize what he does support, and not just oppose. My proposal:

He is a supporter of capitalism, inheritance taxes, fossil fuels, gun rights, and U.S. support of Taiwanese independence.

References

Ageofultron (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• I don't like the proposed second sentence. It seems like a grab bag, and a bit cherry picked. For example, virtually all major U.S. presidential candidates support capitalism, and virtually all the Republican primary candidates "support gun rights" in some form. It's also unclear what it means to "support fossil fuels." We should focus on the most important elements of his campaign. Neutrality^talk 16:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback, will work on a better summary of his beliefs for the second sentence. As it stands though, do you find the first sentence to be a fair rewording? Ageofultron (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Current lead is much better than proposed lead. We need to be reminded that WP:BLP (Bio of Living persons) is very strict and Wiki page cannot be used to defame or cast defamatory view, which Newspapers are free to do. Also WP:BLP priority is on self reported and neutral information as much as possible, which justifies use of quoted text, which is self reported, and not an opinion

  RogerYg (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I've just seen this now after making an edit to this sentence - I thought the verbatim statements of "woke-ism, climate-ism and covid-ism" without the quotation marks looked weird, as these are ultimately just things he (and only he) has said. I think Ageofultron's reworded first sentence sounds fair, and the additional second one would also work with a few changes similar to what Neutrality has said. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

ESG

Please explain, what's ESG or make a link to a relevant wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.72.204 (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

LEAD should NOT be Changed without TALk page Consensus

Please discuss any proposed changes to the Lead sentence, and lead paragraphs on this TALK page as per WP:TALK. Avoid Random edits to lead, especially lead sentence.

We have arrived at current lead after much discussion following the WP:BLP and WP:NEUTRAL guidelines.

Thanks again to all editors on this popular Wiki page. RogerYg (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

No? I've looked through the talk page and its archives and this has not undergone much discussion. You do not have consensus to ask people not to edit the lead sentence, nor did you have consensus to add this hidden note to the article and nor does WP:TALK entail anything about needing to use the talk page before making edits, let alone even mention the lead of an article. This feels incredibly like an attempt at WP:OWN and as thus I'm removing it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is the main thrust of WP:TALK and WP:DISCUSS to have a discussion before any important changes on Wiki page; and the lead is an important change. Well, I agree much discussion has not happened on this Talk page, and I wanted to start that; but earlier consensus was reached through lot of comments in the many edits, reverts, and accepted edits. Anyway, I have no intention of WP:OWN. Since, this page does not have any protection, it gets lot of edits from non-serious IP address edits. I think such notice is helpful for all serious editors. RogerYg (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Since, now this page has protection, the notice about lead sentence may not be needed RogerYg (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with ser. The lead isn't even in much dispute. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Is someone attempting to make a change? Is there an issue with the content of the current lead? Nemov (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove template

Replace

with

. The paid contributions by @Jhofferman has all been reverted. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Tennis?

He seems to be a good tennis player. Lou Sander (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

So true Loytra (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Nice “slams”-but not “grand”-by obviously left-wing “commenters”-I could think of a much better term, but I can’t use it on here –against him. 63.155.33.144 (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about lmao Loytra (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, please keep if focused on improving the article. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Allowing a politician to edit the content of his bio for a contribution

If you continue this practice I will be discontinuing my contributions. Simply putting a disclaimer on the top telling the public that the content may not be accurate doesn't cut it ...... 2001:569:72D0:1600:2D14:6614:C1CF:5215 (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what you're objecting to in the article? --Molochmeditates (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Ramaswamy's campaign has previously paid people to edit this page (anyone can edit Wikipedia articles) and there is no rule explicitly prohibiting paid edits. However, paid editors and other conflict of interest editors are always very strongly discouraged from editing articles directly. Regarding the edits made here, all of them have since been reverted or addressed by Neutrality. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 20:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we aren't sure that Ramaswamy is editing the article, but others have been both caught undisclosed paid editors, and editors who have been paid and are following guidelines. While I can understand being unhappy with undisclosed editors, disclosed editors who are following more stringent rules than any other editor doesn't seem like something you should be unhappy with? Besides, almost all edits made by COI editors has been changed and/or removed. Is there something that I'm not understanding? - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

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. 76.183.146.138 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Maintenance Template

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thanks to the efforts of the several contributors who revised this page in the last few days, I believe it now conforms to Wikipedia standards. Hence I'm removing the maintenance template. If there is disagreement about this, or if I've overstepped my bounds, please let me know and take the necessary remedial action. Jhofferman (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I would have to suggest that a paid contributor who recently made this edit, [2], with what appears to be a misleading edit summary, isn't particularly well placed to make assertions regarding 'Wikipedia standards'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this, and you're right about that edit. I made it at the request of the client and had doubts about it at the time. I apologize for coming down on the wrong side of that one, and further apologize if I neglected to mention it in the summary. In general, I've made my best effort to adhere to standards and to be completely transparent about revisions. This included explaining repeatedly to the client that Wikipedia is not simply another marketing tool and that many of the things they wanted were not acceptable. Jhofferman (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you inform your client that regardless of his wishes, Wikipedia contributors, paid or other wise, are obliged to comply with the relevant policies, and that contributors who repeatedly fail to do so are liable to be blocked and/or banned, possibly indefinitely. As for the edit concerned, I really don't see how the phrase could be seen as anything other than unsourced and essentially meaningless puffery. And regardless of what "cultural thought leader" is supposed to mean, we aren't going to take Ramaswamy's word for it that he is one. Given recent developments it is inevitable that this biography is going to come under increasing scrutiny, and if Ramaswamy thinks it necessary to pay someone to contribute here, he needs to understand that any contributions are on our terms. And subject to public scrutiny. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

We are in agreement on "cultural thought leader." I was hired and began the revision before he declared his candidacy (which I found out about the same way as everyone else) and agreed to do it mostly because I had done a previous revision of the page. Aside from keeping an eye on the site to ensure that basic facts aren't changed (like his wife's name, which someone had altered), I've finished my work and am no longer being paid. FYI, there is a lot of daylight between his ideological positions and my own. I'm happy to leave further revisions and enhancements to others. Jhofferman (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

One last thing. This may sound like a joke, but it isn’t. If I can be of any assistance in terms of providing information or finding sources, please let me know. Jhofferman (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

If you know of any further RS providing biographical information that might be useful, you could list them here. Beyond that, I suspect that if Ramaswamy's candidacy bid gains any traction, there will be plenty of new sources, including ones taking a more critical look at his politics and career. As of now, coverage seems largely confined to sources who's politics align with his. Not that this is at all unusual for entrepreneurs, flavour-of-the-month political commentators etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Now that Vivek is a candidate for US President, it is important to know if his parents were US citizens at the time of his birth. If not, Vivek is not eligible to be President even though he was born in OhioSo please identify his parents' citizenship at the time of Vivek's birth Thank you 2601:8B:4500:A260:9968:FAB5:A712:B086 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't engage in investigative journalism, or make assertions regarding eligibility to run for president. We leave that to the sources we cite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

To add to Andy's statement, not only is this speculation it's simply false.Individuals can claim citizenship purely by jus soli. There has never been any requirement that the parents be citizens as well. JSory (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I re-added the maintenance template largely because the book review section is still largely unchanged from the paid contributor version that cites only positive portions of negative reviews. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the paid contributor/close connection tags can be removed now since we've removed or edited most of those edits, if there is any objection to their removal feel free to revert me and reopen discussion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

The reference to Shabtai mistakenly says he participated while in college. But Shabtai was a Yale society (where he was in law school), and the source indeed says it was at Yale.

Edit to say: Shabtai, while a law student at Yale. 172.250.64.172 (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Done -- M.boli (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Suits by former employees

Two lawsuits in the news recently, against Strive Asset Management and Ramaswamy himself, by former employees. Allegations of a variety of violations of securities laws, particularly with regard to sales practices and misrepresentations.

• Skipworth, William (2023-08-18). "Vivek Ramaswamy Sued By Former Employees Claiming His Company Pressured Them Into Violating Securities Laws". Forbes. Retrieved 2023-08-23.
• Chafkin, Max (2023-08-18). "GOP Presidential Hopeful Ramaswamy Sued Over Strive's Practices". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 2023-08-23.

Considering that Strive redirects to this article, maybe a few sentences belong here? -- M.boli (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not hard against it, though I'd prefer to wait for it to pass the filing stage. That said, I think it warrants a sentence or two in the section about Strive. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Scale of russia consesitions

In vivek’s own words he talks about giving up the pre 2022 war donbass and crimea but the article makes it seem like he supports russia’s full demands 93.106.3.185 (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You can fix it, just make sure that you WP:Cite your sources. Silly me, I forgot that this article was protected. I'll read it and see if I can tell what you're talking about. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Political positions - excessive length

The political positions section is growing excessively lengthy. I propose the majority of the content be moved to Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign, with only the basics left on his main page.

For instance:

Ramaswamy contends that identity politics promotes a "victimhood" culture and should be replaced by a "merit" culture that promotes excellence. He also opposes affirmative action, calling it the "single biggest form of institutionalized racism in America today"

can be reduced to

Ramaswamy is critic of identity politics, and is opposed to affirmative action.

on this page, with the full text transferred to his presidential campaign page. Ageofultron (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• A "political positions of" article would make more sense to summarize this section. Nemov (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  His political positions are really only notable in the context that he's running a presidential campaign. That article would be a fine place for them. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Photogenic. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree. As the campaign progresses, more and more stuff will accrete and become the the bulk of this article. Eventually the campaign ends, this article will continue with the rest of Ramaswamy's activites. Best to hive off the campaign stuff into its own article. -- M.boli (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is already a bit unwieldy and only going to get worse over time. Better to keep the other article up to date with things like this, and keep the biography more readable. --Molochmeditates (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you all, per consensus, I have transferred info to his campaign page and reduced the scope greatly here. However, this could stand to be done further. Ageofultron, 24 August 2023

By who?

Although his undergraduate degree is in biology, he was never a scientist; his role in the biotechnology industry was that of a financier and entrepreneur.

Attribute this statement. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The NYT article at the end of the sentence. It says that despite having an undergraduate degree he isn't a scientist. And the article specifically mentioning his roles as financier and entrepreneur. -- M.boli (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on wording for position on Identity Politics

Putting this section here to discuss reversions to my removal of "what he calls" from the subject's views on identity politics. I suppose I don't understand why that qualifier is necessary. From what I understand, it shouldn't be necessary because he isn't the only person or the first person to identify and call identity politics as such. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 21:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd just leave out the whole sentence, given the vagueness and the less-than-great sourcing. Neutrality^talk 21:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree it is not informative and is likely to be interpreted in diverse meanings by various of our readers. SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd also state that this is something that our own article on identity politics agrees with-- that it's an imprecise term used differently by different people, often as a dogwhistle ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Request edit on 25 August 2023

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

He published a second book, Nation of Victims: Identity Politics, the Death of Merit, and the Path Back to Excellence, in September 2022, a few months before announcing his presidential candidacy.

the paragraph does not mention his third book called "Capitalist Punishment: How Wall Street Is Using Your Money to Create a Country You Didn't Vote For" published April 25 2023.

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalist-Punishment-Street-Create-Country/dp/0063337754

Notmyusernamelol (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: This book is mentioned under § Published works. It may not be mentioned in the above paragraph because that paragraph is in § Anti-ESG/"anti-woke" activism and Strive Asset Management, and this third book may not fit the topic of the section (however, it may; I haven't read this book and can't vouch one way or the other). I was able to find a stronger source that verifies this book's existence, though. 〜 Askarion ✉ 11:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Request edit on 24 August 2023

• What I think should be changed: Remove the source from "Ramaswamy also says that he favors reducing U.S. military aid to Israel.[103]". It should *probably* be changed to https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/21/us/politics/vivek-ramaswamy-foreign-policy.html -- this was the original citation and it looks like it was mistakenly changed to [103], however I do not have a New York Times subscription so I cannot verify this.
• Why it should be changed: The given citation doesn't mention Israel at all.

Evangambit (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Just commenting to note that I think this edit request may have already been carried out, as the citation for it currently is the NYT article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Note: It appears the entire sentence at issue is gone from the article, in fact the word "Israel" appears to be gone from the article. Closing the request. – Recoil16 (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Real name

His father’s name is Vivek. He is Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy junior https://www.worldcupupdates.org/vivek-ramaswamy-parents-meet-father-vivek-ganapathy-geetha-ramaswamy/

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/23/vivek-ramaswamy-republican-candidate-profile-00112348

207.96.32.81 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

VIVEK RAMASWAMY is the widely reported, and more importantly self reported name, so Wikipedia has to use that as per WP:BLP policy. Wikipedia is not investigative journalism. WP:BLP policy for living persons gives priority to self-reported information. RogerYg (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)