Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Too much editorial

Vivek was a scientist. That's what you call a summa biology Harvard grad who discovered drugs 2601:240:CB00:193C:5DA7:3CC2:62AA:B803 (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't. A Harvard undergraduate biology major with high grades is a science student, not a scientist. And there is no source for the claim that he "discovered drugs." The article says he raised money from rich investors to buy the patents to dubious drugs that others had discovered, in hopes of making money on them if further testing showed efficacy. PDGPA (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

paid editor tag?

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.

---

Given that it's clear the article subject has engaged in ongoing paid editing, should we tag the article for that? Valereee (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed the tag back in June after we removed all of the objectionable known paid editing at the time. However, if there are new concerns we can definitely retag the article. @Valereee do you have evidence of ongoing paid editing? Because if so we should add the users to the list we have on the top of the talk page. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Jhofferman is a paid editor. Second editor of the page both by number of edits and by amount of text. COI on their user, and the most recent media coverage mentions them. Last edited the page a week ago. Valereee (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, pinging @TulsaPoliticsFan Valereee (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, whether or not anyone we know to be a paid editor is still involved, this article subject has been paying for editing on an ongoing basis, and there's no reason to think they've stopped. I think at some point we need to have a clear statement that they'll stop, or we need to assume they're continuing to pay for editing and banner the page. Valereee (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:Who Wrote That? shows there is only one sentence and a bunch of scattered words that Jhoff wrote left in the article. So that was why the tag was removed. I wouldn't object to retagging it because you make a fair point that it's highly likely they just got more sophisticated at their paid editing and just stopped disclosing it. Especially after it generated media coverage. I'm a little concerned at permatagging an article for paid editing, but maybe you're right and it is warranted. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion if you feel you've cleaned it up. Other than letting the article subject know this is counterproductive, I guess, lol... Valereee (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Just saw the reporting on this, lean towards putting the tag up until some more thorough digging can be done. To be fair, I wouldn't be surprised if every US presidential candidate has at least one paid editor in the top five contributors to their articles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I would not be surprised, either. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to this tag, however what would the criteria be for removing this tag? Pbritti pointed out that it is likely that every political page has paid editing going on, so adding the tag without hard evidence of existing paid edits would make it so it can never be removed. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the criteria is that some representative of the article subject comes in here and promises there will be no further direct editing of the article. Valereee (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that all the paid editing by JHofferman (removal of Soros scholarship, etc) has been reverted, and thus not necessary to include the tag at this this point. The article tone, as it currently stands, seems fairly objective. I think that the tag should be removed now, as it no longer appears on other pages also caught in editing scandals. User:Ageofultron (User talk:Ageofultron 17:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The tag would attract fresh, uninvolved, editors to work on this page and review it for inappropriate content. That's always a good thing, and since there is no specific allegation made by the tag, I think it is constructive. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's no longer appropriate to use the {{Paid contributions}} tag on this article. Based on the Delta between Jhofferman's last substantive edit and the current article, the vast majority of article content was added after that last paid edit. Looking over what remains, nothing seemed terribly problematic to the point of giving this article a non-NPOV skew. This tag is intended to draw attention to still-extant problematic sections of article text that require cleanup.

For guarding against potential undisclosed paid editing (until the candidate says they've stopped), the {{Undisclosed paid}} tag seems more accurate. Personally, I don't see a pressing need to add that one, given the current state of the article seems pretty neutral. But if we decide a tag is needed, this is the better one. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that much of the page remains unduly promotional. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any examples to point out? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

PhotogenicScientist, professional paid editors fly under the radar regularly. Unless we've been assured paid editing has stopped, is there any harm in tagging the article? Valereee (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If paid editors are so widespread, why wouldn't we just tag all political BLP articles with this tag? I was under the impression maintenance tags were to call out specific, identifiable issues, rather than to be left up like caution signs or disclaimers. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Moreover this page has only 78 editors but hundreds of thousands of daily page views. A prime target just in case anyone pro- or con- were to attempt adding POV content. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I count 185 editors and 134 page watchers. Seems like a lot of eyes on this page to me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I may have been looking at the count for the talk page. On the article page, it says

Page watchers 134 Pageviews (30 days} 2,173,968

So that suggests its a source of information for a huge number of our readers with relatively few editors watching for good content. Just in the past week, a lot of bad text has been removed. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Could we come to a resolution on this? Including the {{Paid contributions}} template isn't really appropriate unless there "still problematic, paid contributions" in the article that require cleanup. And the {{Undisclosed paid}} tag is only for articles where "there appears to be a significant contribution by an undisclosed paid editor." Unless someone can identify large issues remaining in this article, I think we should remove the COI tag. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist, there's no COI tag on the article, so there's nothing to remove? Are you talking about removing the notice from the talk header here on this page? I'd definitely be against that. Editors need to be aware there's been paid and COI editing in the past. Valereee (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Oops - looks like I missed Neutrality's edit where they removed it. I was referring only to the tag on the article space. I've been looking at an old version. My apologies. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:58, 29 August 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.

Opening sentence

I just rolled back a change[1].

Version 1: Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy (/vɪˈveɪk rɑːmɑːˈswɑːmiː/ vih-VAYK rah-mah-SWAH-mee; born August 9, 1985) is an American entrepreneur and candidate in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries.

Version 2: Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy (/vɪˈveɪk rɑːmɑːˈswɑːmiː/ vih-VAYK rah-mah-SWAH-mee; born August 9, 1985) is an American entrepreneur, former pharmaceutical executive, and candidate in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries.

I don't feel a strong way towards either, but entrepreneur and pharmaceutical executive seem a little redundant. The IP editor claims that omitting pharmaceutical executive is political so I brought it here so a consensus can be formed. Which version should be used, should it say something else? Nemov (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. It was excessive detail for that location. I also think that the second paragraph of the lead is too close to a historical recitation that belongs in the body text below. The pharma founding can go in the second paragraph of the lead. We don't need to tell readers that he was born, which is a fairly common circumstance for BLPs. I don't see why the pharmaceutical omission would be considered political. SPECIFICO talk 12:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have objection to the change in the 2nd paragraph and it would be an improvement. Nemov (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Weak Version 2 Weak Version 1, it's mentioned that he is the founder of a biomed company in the next sentence so it's not like it's being hidden. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

So you mean version 1? Or you want it mentioned again in the lead? Nemov (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I meant Version 1, typo on my part - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually think I prefer the executive descriptor to entrepreneur. So I'd do Version 3:Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy (/vɪˈveɪk rɑːmɑːˈswɑːmiː/ vih-VAYK rah-mah-SWAH-mee; born August 9, 1985) is an American corporate executive and candidate in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

A corporate executive isn't as descriptive as entrepreneur because a person could be a corporate executive and not a entrepreneur. Since he co-founded a company wouldn't entrepreneur fit better? Nemov (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Honestly? Not in my opinion. Entrepreneur is vague and overbroad. Like a kid in my neighborhood running a lemonade stand or a lawn business is an entrepreneur and so is this guy. What does entrepreneur communicate that business executive doesn't? Maybe a sense of like risk, but we can get that sense of risk later in the lede when we mention he worked for hedge funds.

I guess in short, I find the "entrepreneur" descriptor to be WP:PUFFERY because it's too vague and overbroad a descriptor. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That is a reasonable objection. "Businessman" would suffice. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Anyone who has a corporate job could be called a corporate worker or businessman. It's far more vague than someone who started and runs a company. Nemov (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Disagree as businessman is more vague than entrepreneur. I can see the puffery argument, but it denotes that he has started a company rather than simply working at a company. Maybe we should simply state that he is a 2024 presidential candidate and founder of Roviant Sciences? - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Is founder of Roivant Sciences too specific? Skimming the article we have:

• co-founder of Campus Venture Network (social media/investment)
• Employee (probs not notable for lede) at QVT Financial (investment)
• Founder/former CEO of Roivant Sciences (Medical)
• co-founder of Chapter Medicare (Medical)
• co-founder of Strive Asset Management (investment)

corporate executive would summarize those, and is slightly more specific than businessman, but neither captures the frequency with which he founds companies if that is what we're trying to communicate with our summary. I see an argument for finding a term that captures his tendency to found company's instead of just managing them, but can we think of one less vague than entrepreneur? Cause an entrepreneur could also just be like a startup investor who gives funds, but doesn't found and manage companies. It doesn't convey the involvement in running and managing as well as businessman or corporate executive. We could do is an American businessman who has founded investment and medical companies and a 2024 presidential candidate. or is an American businessman, primarily involved in the investment and medical industries, and candidates in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries. This summarizes what he actually does a little better. Then we talk about the companies more in the lede and body. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Way too wordy and a step back from the status quo. Nemov (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Of that list, only the Roivant role is significant, the rest is either ordinary or personal activity. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov, @SPECIFICO, How about something like what Aquila Fasciata suggested then

Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy (/vɪˈveɪk rɑːmɑːˈswɑːmiː/ vih-VAYK rah-mah-SWAH-mee; born August 9, 1985) is an American businessman who founded Roivant Sciences and candidate in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries or

is an American businessman, founder of Roivant Sciences, and candidate in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries? Any of those compromises sound agreeable? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I would just leave out the name Roivant Sciences and say ...American businessman and a candidate... SPECIFICO talk 10:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Disagree with businessman, which is vague and NOT WELL SOURCED. Most Sourced mention "Entrepreneur" Agree with Nemov that "Anyone who has a corporate job could be called a corporate worker or businessman. It's far more vague than someone who started and runs a company." Also Agree with AquilaFasciata (talk that " businessman is more vague than entrepreneur. I can see the puffery argument, but it denotes that he has started a company rather than simply working at a company." RogerYg (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Most Reliable Sources mention "entrepreneur" and NOT "businessman"

1. The 38-year-old entrepreneur says he has a plan
   — "Ramaswamy, the Millennial Candidate, Has a Lot to Say About His Generation", The New York Times

1. A biotech entrepreneur and regular commentator on Fox News, Ramaswamy is ambitious, articulate and a bundle of contradictions.
   — "He wrote the book on crushing 'wokeism.' Now he's running for president.", The Washington Post

1. Ramaswamy is also introducing himself with a more youthful spin, as a 37-year-old entrepreneur
   — "The Presidential Hopeful Running as a Younger, More "Anti-Woke" Trump", Slate

1. New York Times bestselling author and wealthy biotech entrepreneur, Vivek Ramaswamy
   — "Will the real Ramaswamy please stand up, please stand up", Politico

1. the wealthy entrepreneur, who has risen from little-known newcomer to as high as third in some Republican primary polls
   — "How Vivek Ramaswamy is pushing — delicately — to win over Trump supporters", Associated Press

Since there is no clear consensus on "businessman", and more importantly it is NOT a well sourced option, we should keep the Reliably Sourced option, which is "entrepreneur".

is an American entrepreneur and a political candidate RogerYg (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that this version is the most logical. Nemov (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that our style guidelines on WP:PUFFERY are more important in the first sentence. If you want to call him an entrepreneur later in the article or lede that's fine based on sourcing. But style-wise we should summarize in the most neutral and explanatory terms possible in our first sentence, in my opinion. I'd prefer ...businessman, founder of Roivant Sciences, and candidate... but, I may be outside the consensus here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the puffery point of view about the word entrepreneur. It's a common word used for people who start businesses and it's widely used by reliable sources. What am I missing here? Nemov (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Nemov that American entrepreneur and a political candidate is most appropriate. WP:PUFFERY refers to legendary, best, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, popular.. It does not apply to "entrepreneur"

Forbes contributor posts as reliable sources for a biography

I have removed a couple of Forbes contributor blogs from this article. These are not reliable sources (WP:RS). We have had several discussions about Forbes contributor blogs in the past, and the consensus is not to use them - see WP:FORBESCON. This is especially important for biographies that have a higher threshold of quality sources to include material here. We should be removing future addition of Forbes contributor blogs as well.

@Callanecc - do you disagree with this, or have anything else to add?

--Molochmeditates (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Request edit on 29 August 2023

• What I think should be changed:

The line in the penultimate paragraph of "Political Positions," which reads "... but said the U.S. should not militarily defend Taiwan from Chinese attack after the U.S. has achieved "semiconductor independence," should be "... until after the U.S. has achieved semiconductor independence,"

• Why it should be changed:

because currently as written it describes an [obviously] unlikely political position opposite to that held by Ramaswamy in the linked sources.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Source 107 immediately following uses the word "until".

 Not done The article has the polarity correct. Rewriting it as "until after" would be incorrect, and is not congruent with either the current source in the text or the multiple other sources I've checked. -- M.boli (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

MGray0 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Not a registered Republican

Wanted to seek consensus on this before editing: According to a new NBC News report, Ramaswamy is not a registered Republican in his home state of Ohio. He's listed as "unaffiliated". https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/gop-presidential-candidate-vivek-ramaswamy-unaffiliated-voter-records-rcna101827

Should the infobox be edited accordingly to reflect that? Midwood123 (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

IMHO running for the republican party nomination and taking part in the GOP debates constitutes reason enough to list him as a republican, even if he technically isnt a party member. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2023

Change "Hindu Tamil Brahmin" to "Hindu Brahmin". Ramaswamy family has never identified as Tamil as they are from Kerala and not Tamil Nadu. 2603:8080:5600:30F6:A08A:961F:D211:BC9F (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done I could not verify "Tamil" in any of the five sources for the sentence (although two or three were paywalled). —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Kerala and Tamilnadu are states formed in 1956. Vivek is from Iyer sub caste of Brahmin caste. They migrated 300 years due to Hindu king appointing them as priests in temple. They retained many tamil culture and still prefers to talk in Tamil. https://www.onmanorama.com/travel/kerala/2022/06/13/a-walk-through-palakkad-streets-steeped-in-history.html

His relative speak Tamil https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2023/08/30/13760-km-away-kerala-village-wakes-up-to-the-us-poll-heat-every-morning.html

The personal life section of this wiki page itself says he is fluent in Tamil.

I hope this shed some light on iyer living in palakkad, also note Vivek is added as Notable people in it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_Iyers 117.213.11.67 (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hindustan Times uses Tamil Brahmin. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Request edit on 27 August 2023

• What I think should be changed: American businessman and a political candidate. He founded Roivant Sciences, a pharmaceutical company, in 2014
• Why it should be changed: Sentence fails to mention that Vivek Ramaswamy is an author as well. It should say, "American businessman, author and a political candidate. He founded Roivant Sciences, a pharmaceutical company, in 2014 and is the author of Woke Inc, Nation of Victims, and Capital Punishment."
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.amazon.com/Books-Vivek-Ramaswamy/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AVivek+Ramaswamy

Notmyusernamelol (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of his publications (according to WorldCat) were released within the last 3 years (except for a dissertation published in 2000 and 2007 [possibly different authors]). So calling him an author is up for debate. Regards,  Spintendo  23:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Request edit on 27 August 2023

• What I think should be changed: "In his book Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam and elsewhere, he has depicted private corporations' socially conscious investing as simultaneously ineffective and the greatest threat to American society.[4] He published a second book, Nation of Victims: Identity Politics, the Death of Merit, and the Path Back to Excellence"
• Why it should be changed: Sentence fails to mention Vivek Ramaswamys third book, 'Capitalist Punishment: How Wall Street Is Using Your Money to Create a Country You Didn't Vote For"
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Notmyusernamelol (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear what is asking to be added here, besides summary-type information from the subject's publication. Regards,  Spintendo  23:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, they seem to have made an identical request above, which I also replied to. 〜 Askarion ✉ 10:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Paid editing of Wikipedia mention in the BLP

I have a hard time justifying a whole section on paid editing of Wikipedia as part of this biography. It seems to be in the WP:UNDUE category. More importantly, there is a lack of reliable sources here. I removed one Forbes contributor source but the rest of the sources rely on HuffPost.

WP:HUFFPOST talks about this being a fairly reliable source for non political topics. This issue, while important or us Wikipedians, should not belong in a biography of a person if only supported by weak sources like HuffPost. This can (and is) mentioned in the more detailed article on the subject's presidential run.

I therefore suggest removing this entire section.

--Molochmeditates (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Not to go too much into WP:OTHERSTUFF, but since there was no discussion here, I saw a similar situation in another biography of Hunter Biden and a discussion around paid Wikipedia editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hunter_Biden#Apparently_Hunter_Biden_paid_a_firm_to_edit_his_Wikipedia_page...

The consensus there seems to be that this should not be part of the biography. --Molochmeditates (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This is just a WP:OTHERCONTENT; Article y doesn't mention this, so article x shouldn't either. Googleguy007 (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I've literally mentioned this in the comment you're replying to and the reason for doing so. Do you have anything substantial to add to the topic at hand, for example whether this should belong in the biography perhaps? --Molochmeditates (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledging that you are making a baseless argument before doing it doesnt make the argument any less baseless. WP:HUFFPOST doesnt show the huffpo as unreliable, just no consensus, I have also found (with a very simple google search) articles covering the situation by Newsweek, National Review, and The New Republic. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

There are also the five other articles on the talk page about it that aren't currently cited in the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any WP:RS links for this on the talk page. Mind posting the links you have in mind here? They might be better suited than what we currently have. --Molochmeditates (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Vivek nepotism

Does the article mention that vivek practiced nepotism at axovant? Maybe not worded as nepotism but that he had family members. Unless axovant was a family business. https://www.biospace.com/article/why-former-medivation-ceo-and-a-once-failed-alzheimer-s-drug-could-be-a-recipe-for-disaster-for-axovant-/ 207.96.32.81 (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

In fact it does. In the 'Roivant Sciences and Subsidiaries' section: The company's market value initially soared to almost $3 billion, although at the time it only had eight employees, including Ramaswamy's brother and mother[2]. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not the most significant content of the cited biospace piece. The more significant narrative is about VR's expertise, management, and success or lack thereof in the business of that company. We can't extract something that is not considered remarkable by mainstream sources covering him. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with SPECIFICO talk. Nepotism has not been highlighted in the source, and Wikipedia pages are not opinion columns to extract such controversial claims from news, especially for Living persons.RogerYg (talk)

Suggestion to include Ramaswamy's harsh criticism of Trump from his book "Nation of Victims"

Could somebody please add this? It seems like a pretty relevant political position. Chris Christie referenced his book's attacks on Trump at the recent GOP debate, so this is no obscure topic. Ramaswamy compared Trump to Stacey Abrams, called him a "sore loser" and called his actions on January 6th "downright abhorrent" and a "dark day for democracy." This stands in stark contract to Ramaswamy's current statements about January 6th.

Ramaswamy also advocated mask wearing as "personal responsibility" and criticized conservatives opposed to masks. So this article is properly balanced and objective, I think it's important to include these contradictory past positions. 70.121.162.56 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Please provide Reliable sources for your claims, and they can be considered for addition if appropriate. What Chris Christie says on stage is not a sufficient reliable source for Wikipedia RogerYg (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Birthright citizenship

V.R. proposes abandoning birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right. He isn't the only politician to do so, articles often mention that the proposals are in the realm of constitutional rights. I agree that the reverted language about repealing the 14th amendment is synthesis and weird. It may also be that Ramaswamy has also stated that he'd like to end birthright citizenship, a right codified in 14th Amendment to the Constitution is unnecessarily wordy and specific. Also unnecessarily sea-of-blue. I propose paring it down to: Ramaswamy has also stated that he'd like to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional right. For the curious, birthright citizenship describes where in the constitution it resides. But not noticing that the discusion is about a right written into the constitution strikes me as exceedingly odd. -- M.boli (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

That version is better than the original, but I'm still not sure it's necessary since it's a section about his political positions and not the source of the law. Maybe it would be clearer if he said he supported an amendment to the constitution changing birthright citizenship? Nemov (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Not everything under political positions focuses directly on the Constitution. The environment is an example of a political position which the Constitution gives no clear guidance on. However, V.R.'s stance going against something that has been guaranteed by the Constitution is what makes it notable. I agree with @M.boli, I think "Ramaswamy has also stated that he'd like to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional right. gets to the jist of why this stance is important in the most concise way possible, would adhere to the text most closely with what the article says about the 14th amendment, while allowing the reader to understand why this issue is being brought up in the first place. Not mentioning the fact that it is within the constitution would be censoring this topic way too much. Wozal (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Please provide some well sourced specific claims instead of very broad unsourced claims. Also, taking things out of context and cherry picking a view may not be helpful, so we need to have sources that provide the context of the claim RogerYg (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Lies and equivocations

There have been numerous comments by his opponents, by news media and by analysts concerning false statements, false denials, and other tactics they have identified in his public speech. For example as given in this analysis. How should the article reflect this feature of Vivek's public persona? SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Not to wade too far into WP:OTHERSTUFF one of the distinctive factors of Joe Biden's political career was the numerous false statements or exaggerations he made pretty consistently for decades. I don't think it deserves a section, but specific examples could be included in the campaign section if it received a lot of coverage. Nemov (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I personally do not think that should be part of a biography but if this receives significant coverage from reliable sources, we could include it in the main campaign article for the candidate. --Molochmeditates (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

A "pattern of falsehoods" is pretty central to who the man is. Not sure it is out of place for the bio. Especially in light of some of the content concerning his business activities. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

NYT article is mostly campaign/political matters. VR misrepresents a campaign event. VR this week's political interview denies that last week he said something different Stuff like that. If he weren't campaigning nobody would care. If it belongs anywhere, it should go in the campaign article. -- M.boli (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Echoing everything @M.boli said. I'd also add that in my admittedly cynical take, this seems par for the course for political campaigns albeit with different levels of media scrutiny. I don't think we should go and add a "lies and equivocation" section for every politician because that might 10x the length of each biography. --Molochmeditates (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

As his campaign proceeds, it is dwarfing any prior notability of this individual. There are more and more sources that describe him as being a Trump impersonator without the charm. His statements about foreign policy, constitutional process, etc. are being described as risible and ignorant demagoguery. This is core to his bio. Whatever financial deals he did are mundane stuff unrelated to his enduring notability. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I would caution anyone writing or editing a WP:BLP on a current high profile presidential candidate to use caution not to turn the article into a news article that covers every story of the week. That's not the role of Wikipedia. When in doubt, wait a few weeks. Which will happen anyway if someone throws up a RfC. If we had to include every controversial statement that a politician made those articles would go on forever. If there's a ton of coverage about something it can be included in the campaign section or spin it off into another article if you want to document every single thing. Nemov (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no suggestion we list his statements. We are seeing many articles that characterize and find patterns and make comparisons and provide criticisms of the statements. Such summary representations in RS are not NOTNEWS in the context of the current focus of this page. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully  Disagree with SPECIFICO talk and Fully Agree with Nemov on this point that WP:BLP is quite strict policy that gives benefit of doubt to the Living person, and Wikipedia editors are bound by WP:BLP. Also agree with Nemov on WP:NOTTHENEWS. We need to be cautious in adding any defamatory material on Vivek based on WP:OTHERSTUFF that News media often does, but that is a violation of WP:BLP for a Wikipedia article RogerYg (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It is important that all Wiki editors note the importance of WP:BLP (before putting negative News material on Wiki pages) as quoted below

1. WP:BLP:Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), & No original research (NOR). Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
   — "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons", Wikipedia

   RogerYg (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you find defamatory? SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I was replying to the broad discussion on WP:BLP issues above, not to any specific statement yet. Basically, noting that Wikipedia standards are higher than News media for reporting claimed lies or anything defamatory. RogerYg (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Well, he is widely criticized and ridiculed, but there are many solid RS for such reactions. SPECIFICO talk 06:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality: "scientist", Roivant profitability, religion, Wikipedia, conspiracy theories, climate

Original heading: "User:HiResolutionEdits' content removal" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is about the content removed in Special:Diff/1172460010/1172463325. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

---

@User:HiResolutionEdits You keep edit warring, dont do that please. Discuss the changes you want to make here. A Socialist Trans Girl 11:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

In tomorrow's discussion I will mention these points:

1. Vivek never called himself a "scientist"

2. You can not make a truth claim asserting Vivek is purposefully pandering to Evangelical Christians: the evidence to substantiate this claim is unfounded through the sources given.

There are a slew of other problems as well, but we can start here. Please look to be proactive about these issues; you can refer to my prior revisions to see where I removed information regarding point 1 and 2 to start. I am in contact with a moderator who will provide oversight through this issue; my goal is to resolve these issues (if you do not do so) tomorrow evening or by next week.

Thank you. HiResolutionEdits (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

There are no deadlines here. The discussion to reach a consensus will take as long as it will take(though it isn't open ended). You are welcome to begin now(unless you are unavailable, of course) 331dot (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@User:HiResolutionEdits Keep in mind you can still participate in discussions, the not being allowed to edit only applies to the article itself. So, I'll address your points.

• Vivek calling himself a scientist is stated by the source 1
• It is in the sources given.

Thanks! (◠‿◠✿) A Socialist Trans Girl 13:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

When there is a dispute that can be reduced to "the source says so" vs. "the source doesn't say so", I'd like to see a quote from the source directly supporting the statement, and a link to the source if possible for easy verification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, here's the quote: "On the campaign trail, as he lays out why he is a different kind of presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy calls himself a Harvard-trained “scientist” from the lifesaving world of biotechnology." and He is the child of Indian immigrants, and “privilege,” he said recently in Iowa, “was two parents in the house with a focus on education, achievement and actual values. That gave me the foundation to then go on to places like Harvard and Yale and become a scientist.” from this source cited in the article. A Socialist Trans Girl 13:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering about a different part of the article, "Ramaswamy has sought to appeal to". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

A Socialist Trans Girl, would you agree that in Special:Diff/1172460010/1172463325, the removal of the statement containing "Ramaswamy has sought to appeal to" was fine as the content lacks a reliable source? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Nope, NY times is pretty reliable. A Socialist Trans Girl 13:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The source provided for that statement is the Rolling Stones magazine, and the New York Times article doesn't mention the word "evangelical". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree the source here is the New York Times, and it has the word 'evangelical' nine times, so that's not correct. And I don't see rolling stones mentioned at all anywhere in the article, so I'm not sure what you mean. A Socialist Trans Girl 03:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at the source you cited above ([3]). I was confused multiple times because of the initial multiple-bullet-point response and because both different sources are NY Times articles. I have now removed the Rolling Stone citation from the article per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS; I had overlooked the second citation at the same place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Oki, so is it fine now? A Socialist Trans Girl 04:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't checked thoroughly and if it's disputed again, we may need another quote+link such as you had provided for a different disputed statement above. It's probably all already fine though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Oki, nice. A Socialist Trans Girl 05:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not stated: that is a secondary source, which has also not referenced the source where that quote is found. This is problematic. HiResolutionEdits (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferred. If we're talking about the Rolling Stones magazine, WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS applies though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No where has Vivek said he was a "scientist" and the source in question does not reference where Vivek did say that. There is not a direct source whatsoever of Vivek making that claim. HiResolutionEdits (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources does say where he said it, it says that he said it in Iowa. A Socialist Trans Girl 13:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It says that in Iowa he "developed a number of medicines" NOT that he was a scientist. I would really appreciate if any moderator can verify user's source. HiResolutionEdits (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It does say that but I wasn't talking about that one, I was talking about He is the child of Indian immigrants, and “privilege,” he said recently in Iowa, “was two parents in the house with a focus on education, achievement and actual values. That gave me the foundation to then go on to places like Harvard and Yale and become a scientist.” A Socialist Trans Girl 13:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I will have to investigate further: I do not see even one cross reference to that quote from Vivek. I will post any updates here. HiResolutionEdits (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't need original research based on primary sources though, just saying. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I will simply have to look at what he said in Iowa and see if he has been quoted correctly; at this point, I suspect he has, but since there are no cross references I am inclined to investigate. HiResolutionEdits (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@HiResolutionEdits what do you mean by cross reference? Doug Weller talk 06:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Second point: "Vivek Ramaswamy Leans Into His Hindu Faith to Court Christian Voters". This was an article cited to substantiate claims that Vivek is pandering to a Christian base solely for his campaign progression. This is an assumption not based on a quote or empirical evidence. The source cited is an internal critique and is completely subjective, so I do not understand how truth claims can be derived from it. HiResolutionEdits (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

What from the source makes you think that? A Socialist Trans Girl 13:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@HiResolutionEdits We don’t have moderator’s, no one who can “officially” do that. Doug Weller talk 06:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on secondary sources, not primary. A Socialist Trans Girl 13:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Reviewing the NYT article, this entire article is built around the following quote. He is the child of Indian immigrants, and “privilege,” he said recently in Iowa, “was two parents in the house with a focus on education, achievement and actual values. That gave me the foundation to then go on to places like Harvard and Yale and become a scientist.” The NYT pairs this quote with a sub headline that reads Mr. Ramaswamy calls himself a scientist from the biotech industry. The subheadline is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Politicians say a lot of silly things and this is silly, but unless Ramaswamy is repeating this over and over and it's being reported by multiple sources (other than "the NYT reported") I'm not sure it should be included in a WP:BLP. Nemov (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Scientist is a very broad term, as noted on Wikipedia, anyone who advances knowledge in a scientific field can be termed a scientist. In case of Vivek, he did research in biology field at Harvard, and summary his senior research thesis was even published in Boston Globe, which shows that he advanced knowledge in this field

  1. he (Vivek) wrote a senior thesis on the bioethical issues associated with the creation of human-animal chimeras: living organisms currently being created from the cells of humans and animals.
     — "Rising alumni talk about their lives at Harvard—and beyond.", Harvard Magazine

  RogerYg (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  No, that’s an undergraduate paper and certainly doesn’t make him a scientist. Just as majoring in history doesn’t make one a historian. Doug Weller talk 06:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  While I agree with you that as of current facts, Vivek may not be considered a "Scientist". But, I was just pointing that according to Wikipedia, definition of Scientist is very broad: "A scientist is a person who researches to advance knowledge in an area of the natural sciences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

  Therefore, if someone claims to be a Scientist, based on their work with pharmaceutical drugs in whatever capacity, it may not so easy or certain to disapprove their claim, as by a non-scientific reporter from a news agency. Anyway, I guess this issue is closed for now RogerYg (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @RogerYg But we don't use our own articles as sources so that's irrelevant. Doug Weller talk 06:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agree case closed, not a scientist. SPECIFICO talk 07:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

{{Edit request|Add that if he were to win the election, he would be the second person of color to become president, the first person of color from the Republican Party, and the first Asian-American president.}} 178.164.179.36 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2023

Under the Axovant section (which at least is already more detailed) it needs to be said that it's been accused of being a pump-and-dump - see https://fortune.com/2023/08/31/smoke-mirrors-debate-vivek-ramaswamy-2-year-diversionary-tactics-business-commentary-sonnenfeld etc. 92.21.80.37 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The provided source is an opinion piece. – Recoil16 (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

FDA approved drugs

According to this New York Times Article, The core company Mr. Ramaswamy built has since had a hand in bringing five drugs to market, including treatments for uterine fibroids, prostate cancer and the rare genetic condition he mentioned on the stump in Iowa. The company says the last 10 late-stage clinical trials of its drugs have all succeeded, an impressive streak in a business where drugs commonly fail.

It seems the current article is omitting these details. I was wondering if the above paragraph could be included into the article, preferably by someone who has experience in these areas. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

What was his role in these events? SPECIFICO talk 18:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Suthasianhistorian8 The article does explain that Axovant Gene Therapies brought drugs to market. I think you need to find a source that is more specific about Ramaswamy's role and the drugs brought to market before it can be added. --FeldBum (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2023

1)Change "He founded Roivant Sciences, a pharmaceutical company, in 2014" to "He founded Roivant Sciences, a pharmaceutical company, in 2014. Also authored Woke Inc, Nation of Victims, and Capitalist Punishment between the years 2021-2023. Notmyusernamelol (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)