This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vivek Ramaswamy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "end birthright citizenship" to "end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants".
Having the sentence be just "end birthright citizenship" is implying a categorically different policy. Under Ramaswamy's desired policy, "birthright citizenship" will continue to be the primary way in which the US population grows, through the automatic naturalization of the children of legal immigrants. Npip99 ( talk) 06:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Not done Ramaswamy's statements on this are campaign sound bites. "Most recent" and "oldest policy opinion" are meaningless verbiage, this isn't an evolving policy debate. And there is considerable uncertainty as to what his proposal would mean. He often says that the 14th Amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants, which is decidedly contrary to current constitutional interpretation, so what does that mean? Would one out-of-status grandmother be enough to cancel a person's citizenship? He has certainly implied that. Changing the phrase "to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants" without finding reliable sources to explain the possible meanings of a campaign slogan would be beyond the scope of this article. And it simply obfuscates what is undeniably the main point: he wants to cancel an enshrined right. -- M.boli ( talk) 15:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Change of mind: It seems this ill-defined slogan "end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants" has been used so much that it is part of a Wikipedia write-up: Birthright citizenship in the United States#Opposition to birthright citizenship. Donald Trump even said he would do so by executive order, although that never happened. So I've changed my mind: it could make sense to put "end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants" provided it is properly wikilinked to the above section, which explains more fully. That writeup describes quite a few different definitions of what it might mean, by the way. -- M.boli ( talk) 02:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
> Invoking September 11 conspiracy theories, he asked whether "federal agents were on the planes" that hit the Twin Towers during the September 11 attacks.
should be replaced with:
> Invoking September 11 conspiracy theories, Vivek has called for an investigation into how many federal agents were on the planes of the September 11 attacks; however, he said that he "has no reason to think it was anything other than zero".
At the absolute minimum, the current sentence should be replaced with:
> Invoking September 11 conspiracy theories, Vivek has called for an investigation into how many federal agents were on the planes of the September 11 attacks.
Explanation: Vivek didn't just "ask whether federal agents were on the planes", so the current summarization of the article doesn't make any sense. The corrected sentence is a very clear, precise, and equally concise representation of what Vivek actually said. Vivek's explicit request is that an investigation is done and the number is revealed.
However, leaving it like this is still technically misleading, as it has a strong possibility of making the reader incorrectly think that Vivek's personal belief is that federal agents were indeed on the plane, when that is not his belief. By being a bit less concise, and including a quote, we prevent this issue.
--- Npip99 ( talk) 06:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it is legitimate to say how many police, how many federal agents, were on the planes that hit the Twin Towers ... Maybe the answer is zero. It probably is zero for all I know, right? I have no reason to think it was anything other than zero."So he didn't "ask" and he didn't only mention "federal agents" and he thinks maybe|probably|um none. But in that bit he isn't invoking conspiracy theories either and I believe there's some style note that we don't refer solely by first name, so I'd suggest:
Ramaswamy believes it would be legitimate to say how many police or federal agents were on the planes that hit the Twin Towers during the September 11 attacks, though he suggests the answer "probably is zero for all I know, right?"Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The government lied to us for 20 years about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11. So maybe shorten it to say that Ramaswamy invokes conspiracy theories around the September 11 incident and add a reference to what I just quoted. -- M.boli ( talk) 16:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template.
Shadow311 (
talk)
21:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chane
He expressed support for an inheritance tax
with
He had expressed support for an inheritance tax in a thought experiment [1], but since starting his campaign has been against it. [2]
References
207.96.32.81 ( talk) 13:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
DFL..democratic farm labor...the twin cities mpls / St paul have hijacked the state...one of the few states west of the mississippi river that is blue in the midwest...they dont represent the workers anymore...on Hannity you said..multi national diversity..thats America....please find a way to take this stae back...Fairmont,Brainerd,any Minnesota river vally city...the iron range...waseca... 65.128.224.157 ( talk) 02:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following under Activism:
Activist investor Vivek Ramaswamy has acquired a 7.7% stake in Buzzfeed, making him the fourth-largest shareholder. [1] Ramaswamy aims to shift the media company's direction by encouraging political diversity and suggesting high-profile hires like Tucker Carlson and Bill Maher. [2] His investment strategy emphasizes moving away from "woke" politics and potentially adopting a more balanced editorial stance. [3] This shift could significantly alter Buzzfeed's content and editorial approach, aiming for a broader political spectrum and possibly attracting a more diverse audience. [4]
I have used very good RS' for the above and wrote in a NPOV.
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:1124:42C:5DDD:78CF ( talk) 15:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vivek Ramaswamy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "end birthright citizenship" to "end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants".
Having the sentence be just "end birthright citizenship" is implying a categorically different policy. Under Ramaswamy's desired policy, "birthright citizenship" will continue to be the primary way in which the US population grows, through the automatic naturalization of the children of legal immigrants. Npip99 ( talk) 06:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Not done Ramaswamy's statements on this are campaign sound bites. "Most recent" and "oldest policy opinion" are meaningless verbiage, this isn't an evolving policy debate. And there is considerable uncertainty as to what his proposal would mean. He often says that the 14th Amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants, which is decidedly contrary to current constitutional interpretation, so what does that mean? Would one out-of-status grandmother be enough to cancel a person's citizenship? He has certainly implied that. Changing the phrase "to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants" without finding reliable sources to explain the possible meanings of a campaign slogan would be beyond the scope of this article. And it simply obfuscates what is undeniably the main point: he wants to cancel an enshrined right. -- M.boli ( talk) 15:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Change of mind: It seems this ill-defined slogan "end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants" has been used so much that it is part of a Wikipedia write-up: Birthright citizenship in the United States#Opposition to birthright citizenship. Donald Trump even said he would do so by executive order, although that never happened. So I've changed my mind: it could make sense to put "end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants" provided it is properly wikilinked to the above section, which explains more fully. That writeup describes quite a few different definitions of what it might mean, by the way. -- M.boli ( talk) 02:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
> Invoking September 11 conspiracy theories, he asked whether "federal agents were on the planes" that hit the Twin Towers during the September 11 attacks.
should be replaced with:
> Invoking September 11 conspiracy theories, Vivek has called for an investigation into how many federal agents were on the planes of the September 11 attacks; however, he said that he "has no reason to think it was anything other than zero".
At the absolute minimum, the current sentence should be replaced with:
> Invoking September 11 conspiracy theories, Vivek has called for an investigation into how many federal agents were on the planes of the September 11 attacks.
Explanation: Vivek didn't just "ask whether federal agents were on the planes", so the current summarization of the article doesn't make any sense. The corrected sentence is a very clear, precise, and equally concise representation of what Vivek actually said. Vivek's explicit request is that an investigation is done and the number is revealed.
However, leaving it like this is still technically misleading, as it has a strong possibility of making the reader incorrectly think that Vivek's personal belief is that federal agents were indeed on the plane, when that is not his belief. By being a bit less concise, and including a quote, we prevent this issue.
--- Npip99 ( talk) 06:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it is legitimate to say how many police, how many federal agents, were on the planes that hit the Twin Towers ... Maybe the answer is zero. It probably is zero for all I know, right? I have no reason to think it was anything other than zero."So he didn't "ask" and he didn't only mention "federal agents" and he thinks maybe|probably|um none. But in that bit he isn't invoking conspiracy theories either and I believe there's some style note that we don't refer solely by first name, so I'd suggest:
Ramaswamy believes it would be legitimate to say how many police or federal agents were on the planes that hit the Twin Towers during the September 11 attacks, though he suggests the answer "probably is zero for all I know, right?"Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The government lied to us for 20 years about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11. So maybe shorten it to say that Ramaswamy invokes conspiracy theories around the September 11 incident and add a reference to what I just quoted. -- M.boli ( talk) 16:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template.
Shadow311 (
talk)
21:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chane
He expressed support for an inheritance tax
with
He had expressed support for an inheritance tax in a thought experiment [1], but since starting his campaign has been against it. [2]
References
207.96.32.81 ( talk) 13:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
DFL..democratic farm labor...the twin cities mpls / St paul have hijacked the state...one of the few states west of the mississippi river that is blue in the midwest...they dont represent the workers anymore...on Hannity you said..multi national diversity..thats America....please find a way to take this stae back...Fairmont,Brainerd,any Minnesota river vally city...the iron range...waseca... 65.128.224.157 ( talk) 02:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following under Activism:
Activist investor Vivek Ramaswamy has acquired a 7.7% stake in Buzzfeed, making him the fourth-largest shareholder. [1] Ramaswamy aims to shift the media company's direction by encouraging political diversity and suggesting high-profile hires like Tucker Carlson and Bill Maher. [2] His investment strategy emphasizes moving away from "woke" politics and potentially adopting a more balanced editorial stance. [3] This shift could significantly alter Buzzfeed's content and editorial approach, aiming for a broader political spectrum and possibly attracting a more diverse audience. [4]
I have used very good RS' for the above and wrote in a NPOV.
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:1124:42C:5DDD:78CF ( talk) 15:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
References