Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy

Religion

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of Maintenance Template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Junior Tennis claims

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

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

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

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

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

"Published Works" Section

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia manipulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Independent/outside editor

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

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

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

Merger proposal

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

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

---

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

Changed description from stub to "stubby"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Activist"

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

QVT

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy

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