Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Climate change denial

I removed a phrase that claims Ramaswamy is a "climate change denier."[1] The current sourcing is coming from a NYT article from a recent debate. The quote they used doesn't support the NYT claim since he clearly is talking about the agenda. It's possible he's made this claim elsewhere so if someone wants to add it back please find a source. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This Time article There's More Than Meets the Eye to Ramaswamy's Climate Comment seems to support what you're saying. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Worland in Time writes that "leading Republicans can no longer feasibly deny that climate change is happening." Using "agenda" and similar locutions allows Republican politicians (he names several, starting with V.R.) to appear that they are not denying climate change while at the same time stake out opposition to addressing climate change. So V.R. is very much at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, which is that it needs to be addressed. His company's flagship product is an energy-sector mutual fund predicated on pushing energy companies to mine more hydrocarbons, remove carbon accounting, and ignore considerations of climate change if it gets in the way of profits. V.R.'s most recent book contains a chapter advocating using financial investment to work against the climate science consensus, with reference to the climate-denying literature to back it up. His oft-repeated campaign chant drill, frack, burn coal may lack the crowd-rowsing psychosexual pizazz of last decade's drill, baby, drill, but the rhetorical point is the same.

It could be ok write that his positions are at odds with the scientific consensus. -- M.boli (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a consensus about climate change. It's a bit of a stretch to suggest there's a "scientific consensus" around political policies to deal with it. That's entering opinion territory, which is what political article like to dabble in, but we should avoid. This section should just stick to his political positions. Nemov (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as the Time author said, But Ramaswamy did have a lot to say about the validity of the “agenda,” presumably referring to policies being implemented by the Biden Administration to slow emissions. One can presume otherwise, e.g. that the New York Times posting (which left out the word "agenda" in the version I've seen) is reliable or that agenda refers to a scientific consensus, but I disagree with putting a Wikipedia editor's presumption in the article, and disaagree with M.boli's re-insertion (which Nemov reverted), since I believe WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Peter Gulutzan that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE may apply. And, Agree with Nemov's removal of the poorly sourced broad claim on climate change denial. A specific claim giving the context may be added with consensus. RogerYg (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

What are his specific climate oolicies? SPECIFICO talk 06:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This article should simply state that he claimed that more people died from the climate change response than from climate change rather than also say it was a false claim. It has not been proven false just because the NYT and Politifact says so.

Vivek is correct, statistically. Anything that makes you poorer will kill you. Being rich is more important to longevity than having access to medicine. Expensive energy, therefore, kills people. "Research shows that the social determinants can be more important than health care or lifestyle choices in influencing health."

https://www.who.int/health-topics/social-determinants-of-health#tab=tab_1

People are in fact dying from lack of AC and heat, and lack of AC and heat is mostly due to energy being expensive. Energy is expensive due to restrictions on drilling. His statement has not been proven false. At best his claims were contested by political opposition. Silencertalk (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

He made a claim without providing any evidence, two separate organisations fact-checked it and found it to be false, ergo it's false. It's as simple as that. Anything beyond that is WP:Original research. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We could reword this around the Wiki voice to say something like in a Republican primary debate, he said that "the climate change agenda is a hoax" and asserted without evidence that "more people are dying from climate policies than actual climate change." I can't read the NYT source, but the FOX source doesn't flat out say it's false. Either way, just attribute it after the claim instead of the Wiki voice calling it false. Nemov (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

By the FOX one I assume you mean the Politifact/Poynter one? I can't find any other Fox ones, bar that one which mentions the "Fox News" debates in the article, though I acknowledge your point that it doesn't directly call his claim false - it does call his "climate change agenda is a hoax" one false verbatim though. I have a NYT subscription so I'll post an excerpt here collapsed for your perusal.

Content of NYT article

“The reality is more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change.” — in the first Republican debate on Wednesday False. There is no evidence to support this assertion. A spokeswoman for Mr. Ramaswamy cited a 2022 column in the libertarian publication “Reason” that argued that limiting the use of fossil fuels would hamper the ability to deliver power, heat homes and pump water during extreme weather events. But the campaign did not provide examples of climate change policies actually causing deaths.

If we need to attribute, we have two different sources calling two different claims of his false in that exact wording, so we do have something to work with there. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Sorry, you're right, I meant "Politifact." This might be too wordy but attribute it something like this? in a Republican primary debate, he said that "the climate change agenda is a hoax." His also asserted without evidence, that "more people are dying from climate policies than actual climate change." Fact checkers rated the claim false since the campaign provided no evidence to support it. Nemov (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Re the New York Times post: you can find on wayback an early version quoting Mr Ramaswamy as saying "that climate change is a hoax", and a later version where the wording has been changed to "the climate change agenda is a hoax". WP:RS says "Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections ..." and New York Times didn't. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a little weird. The publish correction notices regularly, they published corrections notices to other articles mentioning Ramaswamy at about the same day. But this correction was not noted.

I don't think this lapse would cause a problem, an archive.org capture two hours later shows that the quote was corrected. Searching for the article or following the link will find the corrected version. But it is indeed odd that they corrected it without note. -- M.boli (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, but no need to argue provided it's not cited. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the argument here. "Agenda" is often used as a right-wing culture war signifier. A politician who rails against "the gay agenda" is properly understood as opposing some rights for gay people. A politician who rails against "the climate change agenda" and "climate change religion" and "supposed global warming" etc. disagrees, perforce, with the scientific consensus on climate change. -- M.boli (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea for an essay, but I fail to see a compelling Wikipedia policy argument in your comment. Nemov (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

In much the same way that somebody who advocates in favor of flat-Earth theories and rails against the "round-Earth agenda" would be described in Wikipedia. We wouldn't need to find a reliable source specifically labeling the person "flat-Earther" or "round-Earth denier." We could write that the subject disagreed that the Earth is round. Trying to parse which particular aspects of the so-called round-Earth agenda was being objected to wouldn't be needed.

Ramaswamy rails against policies to address climate change, he rails against the "climate change agenda" and "climate religion" and "supposed global warming" and so forth. I fail to see how we aren't licensed to write that he disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, which is what I proposed above. I can see how applying the denier label could be troublesome, and require more sourcing. But I don't think my suggestion is synthesis or OR. -- M.boli (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, that's not really how we treat such views. Please see WP:FRINGE. We don't treat those statements as just another opinion. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Damn straight it is FRINGE. That's why we are here discussing the matter. It is malpractice to repeat Ramaswamy's positions on climate change without noting that he is in error, which is what the current text does (except for one small point).

What I suggested in my comment on the 4th is to write in the first sentence that Ramaswamy's positions are "at odds with the scientific consensus." Later proposing "disagrees with the scientific consensus" was a mistake on my part. I suggest "at odds with the scientific consensus" could cover the problem of pretending that Ramaswamy's views are potentially valid, without getting into the thicket of emotions surrounding the word denier. M.boli (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 Disagree with the new suggestion by M.boli (talk) that first sentence mention that Ramaswamy's positions are "at odds with the scientific consensus." This seems to be an attempt at Expert Opinion or WP:NOR, which is clearly not what a Wikipedia page is about. Wikipedia can only report in a strict conformance WP:BLP Living person. ALso, on a W:BLP page, the standards of WP:NPOV, Verifiability & NOR with are much higher than a NY Times report, which can later retract their story or publish an apology.

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).

It is NOT a malpractice to repeat Ramaswamy's positions on climate change or any topic; it is actually conforming to WP:BLP guidelines, which gives strong priority to Living person's self-stated position over WP: OTHERSTUFF or WP:NOR RogerYg (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It is malpractice to avoid noting that the fringe theories VK espouses on a scientific subject are fringe. No original research is needed. His self-stated positions are here. A simple note that his statements are at odds with the scientific consensus would be an anodyne routine way that fringe theories are handled in BLPs. It is all that is needed to bring this article back into conformance with WP policies FRINGE and UNDUE. -- M.boli (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

My point was that Wiki BLP page needs to provide NEUTRAL view in cases where Living person has opposed mainly to the Climate change "AGENDA", rather than denying any specific the scientific Climate issues. RogerYg (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

FRINGE is not a policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a critical guideline to assist and ensure proper implementation of NPOV policy when dealing with off-the-grid ideas etc. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

But FRINGE must be seen alongwith other important WP policies of Neutrality, Verifiability & WP:OTHERSTUFF, especially for Climate change, where many Scientific claims are being debated even by Climate Scientists. RogerYg (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not the right way to think about it. FRINGE theories are typically verified. Per my comment above, the issue is NPOV (as you acknowledge). SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I was replying with regards to the suggested statement "Ramaswamy's positions are "at odds with the scientific consensus.", which is a very broad and also defamatory statement, which may not pass the WP:BLP test as it does not mention any specific Verified Fringe theory. I agree with you that if there are any specific fringe statements made by Vivek, they should be quoted and called out "as being at odds with scientific consensus", if there are WP:RS sources that mention them as such, but it should not be a broad opening or closing statement, as I have also seen some of Vivek's climate statements that are given along with verified facts & data, so all his positions cannot be clubbed together as unscientific. RogerYg (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"at odds" does not entail "uniformly and exclusively contradicting". "defamatory" is way too strong. SPECIFICO talk 07:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The flagship product of V.R.'s company promises investors they will push companies to extract more fossil fuel and to ignore environmental considerations. His most recent book contains a chapter advocating for climate denial as an investment goal. He declaimed at the debate "the anti-carbon agenda is the wet blanket on our economy" and said the response should be "drill, frack, burn coal". V.R.'s positions are decidedly not consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change. And he tells us so, as he rails against "climate religion" and "supposed global warming" and "the climate agenda." There are quite a few Wikipedia biographies of living people who espouse such theories. When the person espouses fringe theories inconsistent with what reliable sources tell us are the facts, common Wikipedia practice, consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, is to note the inconsistency upfront. -- M.boli (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a succinct reply to all objections above. I think the climate change denial text can be resored. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing has changed as far as I'm concerned from a policy perspective. M.boli makes some shadowy swings at WP:OTHERSTUFF, but based on the sources presented in this article, Ramaswamy hasn't denied climate change is real. Nemov (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ramaswamy's entire position on climate change is contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change. Saying "other stuff" is plumb ignorance. Whether V.R. has "denied climate change is real" is a red herring. The issue on the table is that V.R.'s pronouncements are contrary to what the scientists tell us. And as a general rule in Wikipedia we take care to label such pronouncements. My proposed solution is to say his policies are "at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change." -- M.boli (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

If it is useful to refer to "chapter and verse" so to speak, I suggest section B of the Summary of the AR6 Synthesis Report illustrates a direct contradiction betwen V.R.'s program and the scientific consensus. Some excerpts:

Limiting human-caused global warming requires net zero CO₂ emissions. Cumulative carbon emissions until the time of reaching net zero CO₂ emissions and the level of greenhouse gas emission reductions this decade largely determine whether warming can be limited to 1.5°C or 2°C (high confidence). Projected CO₂ emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure without additional abatement would exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C (50%) (high confidence). {2.3, 3.1, 3.3, Table 3.1} -- Section B.5

From a physical science perspective, limiting human-caused global warming to a specific level requires limiting cumulative CO₂ emissions, reaching at least net zero CO₂ emissions, along with strong reductions in other greenhouse gas emissions. Reaching net zero GHG emissions primarily requires deep reductions in CO₂, methane, and other GHG emissions, and implies net negative CO2 emissions.

— Section B.5.1

-- M.boli (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

We're entering WP:DEADHOURSE territory. As it stands, there's no consensus to include this information. Nemov (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Nemov that there is no consensus about "Climate change denier" broad statement. While I may Agree with SPECIFICO that we can say "at odds with scientific consensus", and might agree to say something balanced as: Some of his views point to Climate change denial. But  Disagree with SPECIFICO that that "climate change denier" text should be restored", which is a very strong statement, and which the Living person has denied being a "Climate change denier", so I think Wiki cannot have same (low) standards as News media as broad defamatory opening or closing statement considering WP:BLP and OTHERSTUFF. RogerYg (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Here are some sources that show that a broad label "Climate change denier" may not be appropriate:

1. On being asked if he was a climate change denier, Ramaswamy criticised the use of labels to divide society. He said: "I'll just state the facts because a lot of these labels are reductionist and most of the people who use them don't know what they're talking about."
   — "Vivek Ramaswamy says global warming is not an existential threat".

2. Asked by CNN on Friday whether he believes climate change is real, Ramaswamy responded, “Climate change has existed as long as the Earth has existed. Manmade climate change has existed as long as man has existed on the earth.”In an email, Ramaswamy’s campaign spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told CNN the candidate does believe climate change is real, but policies to address it “have little to do with climate change and more to do with penalizing the West as a way to achieve global ‘equity.’”
   — "As young conservatives try to get climate on the agenda in 2024".

3. Again, the main debate comment was also about "Climate change AGENDA," not about "Climate Change" SCIENCE

   “Let us be honest as Republicans — I’m the only person on the stage who isn’t bought and paid for, so I can say this — the climate change agenda is a hoax.”

As a WP:BLP page, I think we may need to give priority to self reported or primary information from the Living person, and be Neutral as compared going with OTHERSTUFF from NYT RogerYg (talk)

No, that's ridiculous. Seriously, we need to give priority to what Trump says about himself? Btw, climate change denial does not mean that its proponents (literally) claim there has been no climate change in Earth ever. To quote from our article:

Climate change denial includes doubts to the extent of how much climate change is caused by humans, [...]

TrangaBellam (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• In August, however, the Republican presidential candidates’ debate detoured from the usual litany of empty soundbites into something darker: a collective dismissal of reality. When the eight hopefuls for the presidential nomination were asked to raise their hands if they believed in the reality of human-mediated global warming, every one declined to do so. One candidate, biotech entrepreneur and fossil-fuel stock peddler Vivek Ramaswamy, went even further, slamming the “climate change agenda” as a hoax.

  Despite the bluster of the Republican candidates, the incontrovertible fact remains that anthropogenic climate change is real. As swathes of the world swelter and burn and flood, the folly displayed at the debate makes it critical we understand why so many persist in denying reality.
  — https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/republican-presidential-candidates-vow-to-fiddle-as-the-earth-burns/

  TrangaBellam (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ofcourse, it goes w/o saying that I am in agreement with Specifico and M. Boli. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've created a RfC on this topic below. Please feel free to contribute. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Affirmative action scholarship

He received an affirmative action scholarship when he wasn't an immigrate and didn't need help paying for college. 98.172.184.81 (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

In sackcloth and ashes I cried out to the heavens, "Give me sources!" and there was naught but silence and indifference. GMG^talk 18:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There are no WP:RS sources that provide that Scholarship claim. Also, it was likely for children of new immigrants, and Vivek was considered eligible as he had immigrant parents. Also, terming a Scholarship as Affirmative action may be going into unchartered territory. Wiki page should avoid getting into such controversial debate as per WP:NOR RogerYg (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that he took the money. Just not the AA bit. SPECIFICO talk 10:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with SPECIFICO talk that AA bit is a strech, and not appropriate to be added for this Wiki page. RogerYg (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Alma mater in the lead (second paragraph)

Restored alma mater, which was deleted from lead without TALK page discussion. Alma mater is usually in the lead. See Nikki Haley. Only issue raised was about it being in the first paragraph. Now it's in second paragraph, so that issue is resolved.RogerYg (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Does the "political views" section need sub-headers?

My inclination at the moment is "no," since the section is not that long, but I welcome other views. Neutrality^talk 01:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It read cleaner with section breaks.[2] The sections could be reduced, but it was a navigational improvement. Now it's just a garbled collection of random political positions. Nemov (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

False Claims wording.

I would like to change the wording "he said in a Republican primary debate that "the climate change agenda is a hoax"[114][105] and asserted that "more people are dying from climate policies than actual climate change". After the debate, fact checkers found no evidence to support the claim." to "he falsely said in a Republican primary debate that "the climate change agenda is a hoax"[114][105] and asserted that "more people are dying from climate policies than actual climate change". After the debate, fact checkers found no evidence to support the claim." as per this source which explicitly describes it as false. Googleguy007 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Please review the source. Where does it say in that article that the claim "more people are dying from climate policies than actual climate change" is false? The article says the claim "the climate change agenda is a hoax" is false, which is being discussed above. Nemov (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

---

• I've reverted the change that eliminated "falsely" and inserted the "After the debate, fact checkers found no evidence to support the claim." That tweak is not an improvement; it is both wordy and mealy-mouthed. Sourcers are clear on this; the cited NYT article directly says that this exact quote is false. Washington Post have it "four Pinocchio." Let us get real, folks. Neutrality^talk 01:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, we go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Please revert edit

Could this edit please be reverted, it changed the quote so it is different from the source and I'm not sure about their other edits. 110.144.233.67 (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this has ben done. So we may consider this issue closed RogerYg (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2023

Change "Ramaswamy has also said he would like to end birthright citizenship.[105]" to "Ramaswamy has also said he would like to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants."

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/27/republican-debate-immigration/ Teja123r (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The source for the current statement backs up the claim that he wants to ban birthright citizenship outright, not just for children of illegal immigrants. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ser!: The source provided by the requestor is newer than the one linked in the article. Would it not be better to include newer information? - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the point when him saying he wants it banned outright covers illegal immigrants already. He said in July that he wants to outright ban birthright citizenship; the article in September only mentions that he wants to ban it for illegal immigrants. Sure, you could probably make a case for adding "including for illegal immigrants", but one would think that we already cover that material with the statement he wants it banned outright. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You're correct, I misinterpreted the request before reading the article. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 20:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, got it. No problem. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Question about reordering

Ramaswamy favors raising the standard voting age to 25, which would require repealing the 26th Amendment to the Constitution.[102][103][104] This proposal would disenfranchise a portion of the U.S. electorate; nearly 9% of voters in the 2020 general election were under 25.[95] Ramaswamy has also said he would like to end birthright citizenship.[105] He has said he would allow citizens between 18 and 24 to vote only if they are enlisted in the military, work as first responders, or pass the civics test required for naturalization.

This is the current state. I think the exception regarding "between 18 and 24" should be directly after the initial claim of "repealing the 26th amendment". Otherwise, it is misleading and deceptive since it leads the person to believe that the exception does not exist. User:Nsandell123 15:16 11 October 2023

(Above comment relocated from its original placement in the header -- M.boli (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC))

Sources that label Ramaswamy a climate change denier

It's been a while since the discussion above, and it wasn't formally closed, so I decided to open a new section here. Here are sources that call Ramaswamy a clime change denier.

The Nation: "Ramaswamy displayed no such reticence, however. He leaped into the fray with full-throated climate denial."

The Independent: "Observers and experts were dismayed as seemingly all but one candidate onstage during the first 2024 Republican presidential primary debate seemed to deny the universal scientific consensus that human behaviour is causing the climate crisis." Further down, the article specifies that only DeSantis raised his hand (which DeSantis later denied), labelling all GOP candidates clime change deniers.

The Guardian: "While most candidates didn’t flat out deny the climate emergency – save Vivek Ramaswamy – they showed no urgency to address it". The Guardian does so far as to call Ramaswamy the worst denier.

Mother Jones: "But moderator Bret Baier seized not on Ramaswamy’s blatant denial of the scientific consensus on climate change, but on his claim that he was the only candidate on the stage who was “not bought and paid for."

These four sources are considered to be reliable sources as per Wikipedia's list of perennial sources. Most other sources I found point out that he called climate change a "hoax", but don't deny that he is a denier. There are supposedly reliable sources that label Ramaswamy not a denier, but I can't find those. Feel free to post them here; I may have overlooked them when doing through the comments above. Not that I specifically mean sources that state this, not sources quoting Ramaswamy labelling himself. Cortador (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a change since the last discussion. I didn't request a close because there wasn't a consensus. As far as the sources you've included here The Nation and Mother Jones are considered partisan/bias sources. The the climate change agenda is a hoax quote is already included in the article. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That is the wording from him. The quotes above are from secondary sources. Per WP:SECONDARY, those are preferrable. And WP:FRINGE says, Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The whole point of requesting a close is to have an outsider determine what the consensus is. You as the person who started the RfC specifically aren't supposed to do that unless there is unanimous or near-unanimous consensus.

Bias doesn't change reliability, and since TN and MJ aren't the only sources, we don't need worry about using them to establish notability.

Feel free to post the sources contradicting Ramaswamy being a climate change denier you mentioned above. Cortador (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I have requested a close now since it's been less than a month since the RFC expired. Nemov (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest again, though VR is a raging denier it could be an easier lift to simply write that Ramaswamy's views on climate change are incorrect and contrary to the scientific consensus. It should be straightforward, it is standard practice for FRINGE. We don't need to feud over the "denier" appellation. Here is another source, from FactCheck.org. -- M.boli (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

References

RfC Climate change denial

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus. Discussion participants have not reached a consensus on any particular wording to be used or not used, particularly on whether to explicitly label the subject as a "climate denier", and the discussion has become inactive. Editors should propose specific changes to the article, and put that specific proposal to the talk page for consensus as a new discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

---

In the political positions section on the environment, should Vivek Ramaswamy's position on climate change be described as a "climate change denial." Please review the previous discussion for the arguments for and against. Below is the current status quo version. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Although Ramaswamy has said he is not a climate denier, he said in a Republican primary debate that "the climate change agenda is a hoax" and asserted that "more people are dying from climate policies than actual climate change". After the debate, fact checkers found no evidence to support the claim. At other times, Ramaswamy has said that he accepts that burning fossil fuels causes climate change, but called global climate change "not entirely bad"; said that "people should be proud to live a high-carbon lifestyle"; and said that the U.S. should "drill, frack, burn coal". He criticizes what he calls the "climate cult" and said that as president, he would "abandon the anticarbon framework as it exists" and halt "any mandate to measure carbon dioxide". In 2022, he urged Chevron to increase oil production and criticized its support for a carbon tax. Ramaswamy's company holds a 0.02% stake in Chevron. Ramaswamy opposes subsidies for electric vehicles.

Yes

• Since the "denial" appellation at the head of this RfC can be fraught, I have proposed noting Ramaswamy's agenda is "at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change." The policies he advocates for -- both as a candidate and an investment banker -- are the opposite of what the scientific consensus tells us. He has monetized climate change denial through his investment company. One of his main campaign slogans is an appeal to climate change denial. Climate change denial is indeed part of Ramaswamy's shtick. Letting anti-science views stand without noting them violates FRINGE. -- M.boli (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  A posting at the FRINGE noticeboard inviting additional editors to comment here might be helpful at this point. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• I support for inclusion of the label for the following:
  • In line with Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability (WP:VERIFY), Ramaswamy's direct statement that "the climate change agenda is a hoax" is a verifiable claim. This clear assertion, regardless of any subsequent clarifications or nuances, strongly justifies the application of the term "climate change denial".
  • Wikipedia's fringe theories guideline (WP:FRINGE) mandates that we report on subjects impartially and in context. Given the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, Ramaswamy's remarks that challenge this consensus qualify as fringe views. Furthermore, in terms of neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), it's crucial to represent views proportionate to their prominence. Ramaswamy's public remarks create a need for accurate portrayal on this platform.
  • According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources (WP:RS), we should prioritize credible, published sources. While we should approach content with caution, especially regarding living persons (biographies of living persons, WP:BLP), the consistent pattern of Ramaswamy's remarks on climate change necessitates the use of the "denial" label.
  • Adherence to WP:BLP is non-negotiable, and we should approach living subjects with the utmost care. However, as noted in Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (WP:NPOV), neutrality should not come at the expense of accuracy. Given Ramaswamy's verifiable remarks that run counter to the scientific consensus on climate change, the term "climate change denial" is both accurate and merited.
  • Distinguishing Between Personal Denials and Public Remarks: Drawing an analogy, Adolf Hitler once remarked, "I am not crazy enough to want a war." However, this statement does not encapsulate his aggressive actions, policies, and the eventual outbreak of World War II. In biographical content, especially on platforms like Wikipedia, it's crucial to rely not solely on individual self-characterizations but also on actions and consistent patterns of behavior. Following Wikipedia's notability guideline (WP:NOTE), the label "climate change denier" isn't merely a reflection of Ramaswamy's personal beliefs, but a descriptor based on his notable public remarks. --Ushistorygeek (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2023
• Yes. What Ramaswamy says about climate change is just the standard denialist bullshit, and there is no reason to treat him different from other denialists. WP:FRINGE forbids us from repeating his untruths without also adding that they are untrue. If there is no refutation of the statements, the statements have to be deleted because Wikipedia cannot propagate pseudoscientific bollocks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I understand how you feel, and I may feel the same way. But it is precisely when we feel these emotions that we should be extra careful to make sure that they don't interfere with our duty to make this as neutral of a place as possible since this is an encyclopedia. CranberryMuffin (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Neutral" does not mean treating raging climate change denialism as if it were legitimate encyclopedia-worthy text. And your patronizing response to one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors on pseudoscience is more than a little tone deaf. -- M.boli (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes: WP:FRINGE should be strictly applied. Innovating new language to mask fringe views does not make those views magically not fringe and it's not fooling fact checkers. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes he called it a hoax. A Socialist Trans Girl 12:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes There are several reliable sources labelling Ramaswamy as such, as noted below.

No

• Reliable sources have pointed out that Ramaswamy isn't a climate change denier. The quotes from a recent debate were about polices on how to address the issue and not specifically about scientific consensus on climate change.[3]. After a lengthy discussion above, there haven't been sources provided to make the claim that Ramaswamy denies the scientific consensus on climate change so his position should not be described as denying it exists. Nemov (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Please give us a list of RS that "point out that R isn't a climate change denier"? SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  The discussion above covers this extensively. Thanks Nemov (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I can't find those sources? Ushistorygeek (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• No, I agree with Nemov that there is no clear scientific consensus about "Climate change denier" broad statement. While I may Agree with SPECIFICO that we can say "at odds with scientific consensus", and might agree to say something with Neutral language as: Some of Vivek's climate views may be considered Climate change denial. But will Respectfully Disagree with SPECIFICO that that "climate change denier" text should be restored", which is a very strong statement, and which the Living person has denied being a "Climate change denier", so I think Wiki cannot have same standards as News media as broad defamatory opening or closing statement considering WP:BLP and OTHERSTUFF. Previously, I have given some sources that show that a broad label "Climate change denier" may not be appropriate:

  On being asked if he was a climate change denier, Ramaswamy criticised the use of labels to divide society. He said: "I'll just state the facts because a lot of these labels are reductionist and most of the people who use them don't know what they're talking about."

  Again, the main debate comment was also about "Climate change AGENDA," not about "Climate Change" SCIENCE

  “Let us be honest as Republicans — I’m the only person on the stage who isn’t bought and paid for, so I can say this — the climate change agenda is a hoax.”

  As a WP:BLP page, I think we should quote the debate statement as is, which is self reported Primary information from the Living person, and be Neutral WP:NPOV on other reports as compared going along with OTHERSTUFF from Secondary or tertiary sources such reported in NYT. I think we all agree with WP:NOTNEWS RogerYg (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Let's just use a direct quote, then: "The climate-change agenda is a hoax". No need to get into deflections, denials, and doubletalk. SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with SPECIFICO on this point : Let's use the direct quote from thr debate: "The climate-change agenda is a hoax"., which has widely been reported so it's okay for both WP:RS and WP:BLP. No issues with that as it include the key term "agenda". RogerYg (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's already in the article and has no one has objected to using the quote. The question here is whether the subject should be labeled a climate change denier. Nemov (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• No. From the preceding discussion anyone should be able to see that it was inserted and re-inserted without following WP:BLP re required consensus, that the supposedly reliable source failed to follow procedures that WP:RS would call evidence of reliability, and that the lengthy arguments contain quotes without context (for instance Mr Ramaswamy indeed said "climate religion" but added "it has *nothing* to do with the climate". I'd also oppose the "at odds" proposal but it's not the topic here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  It is perfectly anodyne editing practice to address the first occurrence of an issue with an edit instead of starting a talk discussion. I re-inserted it once with a new source addressing the comment that the source wasn't adequate. (And described this in the comments.) After other editors removed it again, I went to the talk page. Please stop alleging that I wasn't following procedures. -- M.boli (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• No, but I would not be opposed to stating something along the lines of "Ramaswamy has made statements which have been perceived as climate change denial, though Ramaswamy himself denies that he believes that climate change is a hoax." This is contingent on reliable sourcing, though, and if it doesn't come up, it's a hard exclude on my end. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Did you read what you wrote? "though Ramaswamy himself denies that he believes that climate change is a hoax" - what! TrangaBellam (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed with @TrangaBellam, @InvadingInvader's suggestion is a nonstarter. Ushistorygeek (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• No, unless and until high quality nonpartisan sources explicitly and overwhelmingly describe him as a climate change denier. Until then, the correct response is to describe his specific beliefs about climate change in the body. Trying to determine whether he's a "climate change denier" ourselves, or applying any definitions and labels ourselves, is original research. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with "the correct response is to describe his specific beliefs about climate change in the body". Can you imagine if we used that standard for every article here? As I wrote above it is crucial to rely not solely on individual self-characterizations but also on actions and consistent patterns of behavior described. Ushistorygeek (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• No, I agree with many of the editors above. We should be extra careful inserting contentious language or descriptions in a BLP. CranberryMuffin (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The above user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Not unless more sources are found. It seems clear that Vivek Ramaswamy is a climate change denier, but per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS we can't corrects the evils of this world, especially not in BLPs. If we lack sources which say something, we can't say it no matter how much we wish we could. We can't rely on WP:OR to say it. So far the only sources I've seen which directly say Vivek Ramaswamy has denied climate change is the NYT one [4], and Scientific American sort of implies it [5]. While these are okay sources, for someone as high profile as Ramaswamy is, we really need better sources if we are going to say it in Wikipedia's editorial voice. Notably, sources which use it in their editorial voice when talking about Ramaswamy in general rather than simply an event where he denied climate change would help a great deal since this would establish that per reliable secondary sources, it's well accepted that he's a climate change denier. There's reasonable discussion to be had about how we should handle what we say about Ramaswamy's views if we don't use the term But. I'd note that that simply mentioning something Ramaswamy said doesn't mean we're going to make readers think it's true. For example, I'm guessing for a large percentage of the world, the quote of him say "the climate change agenda is a hoax" we're discussing is enough to tell them he's seriously confused or frankly, well I won't go there for BLP reasons but an i word comes to mind. I don't think excluding it somehow is going to avoid misleading readers, instead it's just going to make them less informed. I'd note that there are plenty of other area of the article where we mention Ramaswamy's views without getting into how fringe those views are e.g. 'He has called the LGBTQ movement a "cult"' or 'but argued that social media bans on Trump violate the First Amendment.' The latter seems more likely to confuse readers than most of the climate change stuff since there are a lot of people confused about the First Amendment's application to private companies; and notably unlike with climate change, readers from outside the US are probably going to be even more confused than readers from the US. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's important to note that just in regard to his quote, he said the climate change AGENDA is a hoax, not climate change or the belief that climate change exists is a hoax. It seems in a broader context of that quote, he is attempting to make a distinction between the two. AstralNomad (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  So, you think that he accepts the fact that humans are making the planet less inhabitable but is so much against doing anything against it that he calls that a hoax? That sounds pretty unhinged, but since he is a Republican, maybe it is par for the course. Nevertheless, the point of climate change denial is to prevent action, and the actual reason given (Earth not heating, humans not causing it, it's not bad, it's too late) is unimportant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think it would be best to directly quote "the climate-change agenda is a hoax" as per Specifico. Additionally, AstralNomad and RogerYg both point out the word agenda in the quote, and I think that suggests that he's not attacking climate change as a concept; rather, he's challenging the urgency/severity of the consequences. If there are sources stating that he denied climate change outside of this single instance, though, I would be open to changing it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I've added the second option above as discussed in the !votes. Editors may wish to supplement their postings above. Also, I think somebody might go ahead and request additional editors to chime in by posting a notice at the FRINGE noticeboard. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, I have rolled back your changes to the RfC. The quote is already included in the status quo version of the article and there's been no serious objection to the inclusion of the quote. Adding it to the RfC is completely unnecessary. Nemov (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That is unfortunate, I think. We have invited comment -- rather: You have invited comment -- from uninvolved editors who are not highly familiar with all the article text. Posting the status quo explicitly as the alternative to the "climate denier" bit will help editors evaluate the two alternatives that are before us. I hope somebody will reinstate the listing of the status quo as an alternative. Note that I did not call it "status quo" so as not to bias the presentations of the two choices. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the RfC to include the current status quo version of the article. I hope that helps aliviate your concerns. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Not entirely. For one thing, why is "said he's not" at the beginning rather than at the end, which is where we usually put WP:MANDY denials? This poll should not be interpreted as endorsing that entire text. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't control how you interpret blocks of text, but the question in this RfC is clear. Should Vivek be described as a climate change denier. That's a clear question. If you have other questions about the rest of the section you can open a discussion about it. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a red herring. It's not about me. When you mount an RfC it is your duty to state it in as complete and unambiguous a way as possible for users who arrive because you have notified them with the RfC template. It's not about me. And most readers will not take the time to read and understand the context of the article page narrative. That's simply how we know editors behave. Sad but true, so we need to take that into account. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

FormalDude posted a notice on the fringe noticeboard on 20:25 14 September 2023. I believe the closer should evaluate per WP:CANVASS whether it's non-neutral and whether it's targeted at editors likely to take a side. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean by this? Is it that site-wide noticeboards like RSN, NPOVN, and FRINGE are biased? SPECIFICO talk 01:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What I meant was what I said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

In that case, your view is frivolous and incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 14:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not frivolous to point out the wording of that notice isn't neutral. The editor shares an opinion about the RfC and mentions the revert that was discussed. None of that is relevant to the notice and it can be argued that it's meant to sway people reading it. I'm surprised you've characterized Peter's opinion as frivolous when it's made in good faith. Nemov (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

How about you AGF about what I meant to do with that notice? I was simply providing necessary context, I had no intention of influencing the outcome of this discussion in any way. I don't even care how this goes and will not be participating myself. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Nemov, "frivolous" is orthogonal to "good faith". I asked Mr. Gulutzan to clarify his concern, but he said just to read it literally. Notifying a site-wide board with a succinct neutrally worded statement is AOK. As several editors have pointed out, the RfC is poorly formed and is unlikely to resolve the underlying issues about how to convey Ramaswamy's climate agenda. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

If you had literally read what he wrote there would be no confusion about his comment. He makes no objection to using a notice board. He quite clearly says he objects on neutrality grounds. Your responses to this are baffling to me and there's really no reason to continue to go back and forth about it. Thanks Nemov (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It'd be good to consider the feedback of many editors abobut these matters, rather than repeatedly insisiting the RfC is well-formed, etc. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

One source for "climate change denial" (it must say it, not imply it)

One the source for the claim he is not a denier, not him saying he is not, a source saying it in their words.Slatersteven (talk)

Reliable sources say "Limiting human-caused global warming requires net zero CO2 emissions." (IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report summary, section B5). -- M.boli (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• That would seem to be a clincher for the fact that he fits the bill of "climate denier". As to whether such a label is useful or encyclopedic, I'm still dubious, but less so than at first. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 18 September 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.

Name one drug from this guy

name one, just one. Yet he's made billions, where does the money come from? All the people who overpay for their prescription meds. Please spare us the hooplah until we see people actually being helped by a new drug. Steve Brackett (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Steve Brackett: The article talk page is for discussion of how to improve the text of the article page. If you have mainstream published references that support your statement about his business, please provide them along with a draft of what article text you would propose to add or amend to reflect what those sources say. SPECIFICO talk 12:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"Promotion of conspiracy theories and falsehoods" violates WP:BLP

I think the sub-topic title and some of the content in this paragraph Violates WP:BLP for Living persons. As we know, WP:BLP is a mandatory and strict WP policy, and making strong unproven charges for a Living person is against Wiki policies. And, Wiki is NOT NEWS, so just because some news article makes a charge, same cannot be put on Wiki page, without giving consideration to WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV neutral language.

Also, I understand that User:Jasper Deng has argued that WP:NPOV does not mean we have to use non-discriminate language. It means we present facts with weight that reflects their coverage in reliable sourcing as per due WP:DUE.

But, this is a Contentious topic, and WP:BLP cannot be ignored or therefore, we need input from more Wiki editors to form a consensus, without edit-warring RogerYg (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

And, Wiki is NOT NEWS, so just because some news article makes a charge, same cannot be put on Wiki page, without giving consideration to WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV neutral language.

Please first note that "Wiki" is not a correct abbreviation for Wikipedia.

Next, I cannot see why we should not reflect what the cited sources say. NOTNEWS means we don't write our articles like a newspaper. It doesn't mean we cannot cite news articles. There's nothing about WP:RS that makes news articles unusable as sources for claims about living people. Therefore, nothing is BLP violating about claims about his falsehoods.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Ramaswamy certainly has attracted a lot of attention of late by doubling down on the bushwa. It has been widely-reported in reliable sources, Ramaswamy himself endorses this crap. There is no serious argument that this section consists of "unproven charges" and therefore violates BLP. Since the bushwa is gushing in the context of Ramaswamy's campaign, it seems to me the Ramaswamy campaign article deserves the lengthier description, with a summary here. -- M.boli (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

What portion of this section is objectionable? Objection aside, the subtitle is too long. "Promotion of conspiracy theories" is sufficient. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree, that subtitle is too long. "Promotion of conspiracy theories" is sufficient.RogerYg (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Have made that change. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Foreign affairs

This information was removed with the following edit summary: "some of this new content is duplicative, vague/undefined, or not particularly central/biographically important; discuss at talk if you want to pursue it. Also copy edit".

I think that stating that he considers China to be the biggest threat or that he wants to strengthen relations with India are quite important foreign policy positions. I don't understand why they were removed. @Neutrality:, can you please explain?

Ramaswamy called for stronger relationships with India and less economic dependence on China. He called China the "biggest threat" and warned against a Sino-Russian alliance. He called Russian President Vladimir Putin a "craven dictator".

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Pretty vague/general content (what does it mean to "strengthen relations"? How does he want to get to "less economic dependence," and what does that even mean?) We already note that he has said he wants to make concessions to Russia, contending that doing so would weaken China. We mention some of his specific statements, about semiconductors and the like. If he ever said anything specific about trade policy or tariffs, then that might also be worth including. I don't believe these sound bites from interviews add substantive new content that is biographically significant. Neutrality^talk 15:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it (the stronger relationships with Inida) would be significant enough to include a sentence in the foreign policy; considering the fact that India and China's relations are becoming amenable, it would at least provide a more through picture of his view of China as a threat. I wouldn't say it warrants much more than a sentence or two, though. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that India should be mentioned. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Vivek's talking point about Russia "agreeing" to drop China has never been specified by him or taken seriously by anyone else that I've seen or read. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Request inclusion of recent polls in 2024 presidential campaign section.

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

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

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

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

@Cmsmith93  Done

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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