Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2024

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: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. cited source quotes him as saying "“I’ll actually go one step further on this, Abby, is that I don’t think someone just because they’re born in this country, even if they’re a sixth generation American should automatically enjoy all the privileges of citizenship until they’ve actually earned it,” Ramaswamy told CNN’s Abby Phillip." That seems like ending birthright citizenship for all, not just illegal immigrants. If you have another source that shows a different policy position than he expressed in this source, provide it here and reopen this request then Cannolis (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

His most recent channels have opined only a restriction of illegal immigrants, some sources to use for citation are

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/27/republican-debate-immigration/

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4227711-ramaswamy-end-birthright-citizenship-2024-debate/

https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1736065455561777334

These date to Sep 27, 2023. The CNN article is from July. It appears the most recent clearly enunciated opinion of Vivek for the campaign is for this to be for illegal immigrants. Whether Wikipedia should include only the most recent statement, or all historical statements, is a decision I can defer (Though, only including the oldest policy opinion is likely not valid). Npip99 (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I withdraw my opinion that we should include both opinions in any form, we should definitively just change "end birthright citizenship" to "end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants", there is no evidence in either interview that he was ever of the opinion of ending birthright citizenship as a policy for anyone but illegal immigrants. Here is a full interview for your viewing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM4UpgZ6sQA

I recommend watching it full, and it includes a variation of the soundbite. It is clear that his opinion has always been: "end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants", and "in order to obtain your full civic rights, you must pass as a civics test". By "sixth generation American", he clearly means 100% of Americans, going back six generations goes back to the early 1800s for most Americans if not the early 1700s for some. His statement is an application across all Americans at any level of immigration generation (Which is every single American other than Native Americans).

In the CNN quote, "enjoy all of the privileges of citizenship until they've actually earned it", that isn't debating their status as a citizen, this is debating their privileges. This is confirmed by watching the linked YouTube video. Npip99 (talk) 19:50, 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)

This simple answer is this should reflect what reliable sources says with due weight. The ramifications of the policy aren't for us to speculate about and that falls under original research. Nemov (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! That's sharpens my point, I in no way suggested OR. If we add the simple-minded "for illegal immigrants" it might require reliable sources to say what it could possibly mean, which is a thicket that we shouldn't be entering, far beyond the scope of this article.

Perhaps if we do add "for illegal immigrants" we would add reliable sources saying that it isn't the simple idea it sounds like. To illustrate: if Ramaswamy were to campaign-promise to "roll the illegal immigrants off the edge of the flat Earth" we would be obligated to add a reference saying the Earth is not flat. -- M.boli (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The statement that his policy is to "end birthright citizenship" is categorically false, and cannot continue as it stands. How we word it in a way that's neutral takes care, it's not our job to do original research, but it has to change to something else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM4UpgZ6sQA

Here an interview on the topic. Watching this interview, "end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants" appears entirely sufficient, and is certainly the closest we can get without original research in my opinion. If you have any opinions against that wording, I'd recommend just offering exactly the way you would word it rather than debating any shortcomings with my suggestion. I.e., a suggestion in the form of "Replace X with Y", not just, "Change X". Npip99 (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "Most recent" and "oldest policy opinion" are meaningless verbiage because politicians will change opinion or change meaning. In that case, we should just enunciate both. A simple fix would be

> end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, and at one point even said end birthright citizenship for all.

From research into sources, there are numerous sources for illegal immigrants, but his statement for all comes from only a single CNN Interview. We can certainly include both.

> And it simply obfuscates what is undeniably the main point: he wants to cancel an enshrined right.

The response to above is simply the same reason why I think this needs to be addressed. There is no honest way to combine "birthright for all" and "birthright for illegal immigrants" into a single point, as these two policies are materially different in a large way. We can't combine them in any meaningful way and his opinion on each potential policy has to be treated separately. Npip99 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Utter blather. Nobody said anything about "birthright for all." Just like "curtail free speech" wouldn't by default mean "no speech for anybody." However see change of mind below. -- M.boli (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good.

Response: "curtail" specifically means, reduce not destroy. "end" doesn't. I believe a very high percentage of readers will interpret "end birthright citizenship" as "birthright citizenship no longer exists in this country", I personally think that's the correct way to interpret that phrase but even if it's not it's a reasonable way to interpret it. Hence, "birthright for all." Npip99 (talk) 14:24, 18 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)

Sure. Makes sense to me.

Full interview happens here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1352

Actually, for an accurate wording, "end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants". So that would be the goal. Npip99 (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• For the third time  Not done. Go find secondary sources. This doesn't include YouTube or Twitter. GMG^talk 14:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2024 (2)

> 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'm sympathetic. The cited Guardian story quotes him as saying 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)

I agree the current statement is problematic, in part for reasons @Peter Gulutzan noted above. The spat over did-he-or-didn't-he one time suggest federal agents were on planes seems unimportant, it hasn't carried forward in the campaign for the presidency. That one-off spat was the source of the sentence in this article.

Regardless of that one-off incident, Ramaswamy does repeatedly raise the idea of conspiracies. For example from a debate in early December: 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)

The mystery surrounding what the Saudi's knew before that attack isn't really conspiracy theory territory. [1][2] Are their sources where he's jumped to a conclusion on that topic? Nemov (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2024

Chane

He expressed support for an inheritance tax

with

He had expressed support for an inheritance tax in a thought experiment, but since starting his campaign has been against it.

References

207.96.32.81 (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Current wording supported by Wall Street Journal; in light of this the sourcing on your proposed changes falls short. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 11:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Minnesota DFL

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2024

Add the following under Activism:

Activist investor Vivek Ramaswamy has acquired a 7.7% stake in Buzzfeed, making him the fourth-largest shareholder. Ramaswamy aims to shift the media company's direction by encouraging political diversity and suggesting high-profile hires like Tucker Carlson and Bill Maher. His investment strategy emphasizes moving away from "woke" politics and potentially adopting a more balanced editorial stance. This shift could significantly alter Buzzfeed's content and editorial approach, aiming for a broader political spectrum and possibly attracting a more diverse audience.

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)

 Partly done; the article already had a sentence regarding his stake under a different section, so putting it there instead. Also, the Washington Post and AP sources are exactly the same, with the AP source not verifying the sentence it's sourcing, so not adding that. The rest is good, though. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

References