Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Sometimes less is more

Not sure that the recent tinkering serves the article. Perhaps better to allow the FA status decision to be rendered on the material that is already in place and has not really been controversial?  Dezastru (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree too.  That is why I have made a very simple and minimal request: adding a sentence to a quote for context.  Few things could be as simple and unobjectionable as that.  I don't mind telling you that the reason I took a closer look at this is because of a rare email I got through the Wikipedia email system, and I think the sender (who I never heard from before) has a good point.  There has been controversy about how much of these remarks to quote, and I helped to remove the previous 100+ word quote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

1968 auto accident seems a complete whitewash

Talk about glossing over a well documented story that even includes the possible cover-up by the Mormon church and his father, George Romney, who was running for president. A person died and stories have changed, yet it hardly rates being mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.239.91.45 (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that discusses a cover-up and changing stories?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Just rubbish. Stories haven't changed, there's no cover-up, and George Romney withdrew from the presidential race 3½ months before Mitt's accident happened. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

For Anythingyouwant,

Yes, a person died, Leola Anderson, and stories have changed. And by definition, it smells of a cover-up.

from one of your favorite sites, Wikipedia: "A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information."

Romney's ever changing story, up until the 2007 Romney re-branding, which had people come forward. Isn't it interesting that all references posted are from that 2007 re-branding.

These ever changing, until the 2007 re-branding, stories are posted all over the internet, many with Romney's own quotes. Some obviously choose not to look.

The Romney tale....... In a "coma" for days until photo of him in hospital showed otherwise. Mountainous road, high speed, accident until photo showed otherwise. Head-on accident until photo showed otherwise. Drunk, prosecuted, dead Bishop Vilnet. Although no alcohol tests given to either side, no prosecution, and by the way, the man isn't dead.

Most of the photos Mr. Romney wished never appeared were taken by family friend, Andre Salarnier. The same Andre Salarnier who in April told French newspaper, Sud Ouest, he wouldn't speak on the accident as it would be exploited against Mitt.

For Wasted Time R,

The reference to George was for the year 1968, for those too young to know .For those who didn't know the power the Romney name had in '68. The power to get Sargent Shriver, then U.S. Ambassador to France, at Mitt's side. The power to have Mitt's brother-in-law doctor flown to France at Mitt's side. The power to move Mitt out via private train car just days after this accident involving death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.239.91.45 (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll save us both the effort of further discussion. I won't be able to convince you of anything because by definition, conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable. But Wikipedia policies do not allow the insertion of wild accusations unsupported by mainstream, reliable news sources, especially when the target of those accusations is a living person. So go find your favorite conspiracy website and pitch your vision there. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You sure you aren't thinking of Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy...? Ckruschke (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Conspiracy ? Wild accusations? This is about the whitewashing done here on this tragic event that took a human life.

1) All my remarks on George Romney are true, no reason to source them. Even referenced in some of the posted links.

2) The Mormons saying priest drunk, given false name, and claiming he is dead. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/world/europe/24iht-24Romney.6300715.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

3) The live, dead, bishop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-F%C3%A9lix-Albert-Marie_Vilnet

4) Obituary of Mrs. Anderson calling Mitts head injury MINOR. http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8317/7939380748_50ef47aac8_b.jpg

5) Pictures by family friend, André Salarnier, including Mitt's hospital picture, the next day, minus comma or serious head injury. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085412/The-shocking-pictures-Mitt-Romney-died-young-Mormon-missionary.html

6) Mitt's friend and photographer,André Salarnier, saying what he knows could be exploited against Romney. http://www.sudouest.fr/2012/01/04/romney-le-girondin-595652-2780.php

7) Family friend and photographer, André Salarnier, stating he was told by Romney camp not to speak of accident http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2012/03/07/les-tribulations-d-un-mormon-en-france_1652481_829254.html

I could go on and on with links but why bother, you aren't looking past your agenda here.

"Conspiracy"? No! Cover-up? Yes, I claim a cover-up, "an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.239.91.45 (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Usually incoherence of a post and just hopping all over the place (like the above) and refusing to communicate coherently is a sign that it's BS. But either way, they have the wrong article. This is the Mitt(not George) Rommney article. North8000 (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

IP173, look, this is real simple. Go call the New York Times or the Boston Globe or the Washington Post or the Guardian or Le Monde and reveal to them The Hidden Truth about the real facts of the accident and the cover up to end all cover ups. Let them research it and verify it and publish it. With mainstream news sources behind it, we'll incorporate it into this article, they'll win the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism, and you'll have the inner satisfaction of knowing that you changed history. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

2008 Massachusetts Deficit

Yesterday, I noticed that one of the footnotes (currently numbered 189) was marked as a dead link. I clicked on the link and it was not dead, so I removed the dead link template. But then Dezastru reverted. So, I looked into it a little bit more, but still haven't quite figured out what's going on. Clearly, it is not a dead link, because a linked document pops up on my screen. However, the linked document does not seem to be described correctly in footnote 189.

The linked document is a statement from Deutches Bank Group dated October 1, 2012. That date is AFTER the dates in the footnote, so perhaps the new link was swapped for an old one earlier this month? I have not gone back through the edit history to sort this out, but perhaps Dezastru can explain what happened?

In any event, the linked document does seem to support at least some of the figures in our footnote. For example, at Part I: Appendix I-K (pp. 25-26), the linked document says this: "Tax Revenues for Fiscal 2008 were 20.879 billion and resulted in a deficiency of $495.2 million for the fiscal year....The budgeted operating funds of the Commonwealth ended fiscal 2008 with a deficiency of revenues and other sources over expenditures and other uses of $495.2 million...." But I have no idea why our footnote does not mention Deutsches Bank Group, and where did the originally-linked document go?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, no one seems to want to respond, so I will investigate further myself. More to follow....Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I looked a bit further into this. The main body of this Wikipedia article says:

Then Note 13 says:

The obvious question is this: why does the main text of the article say "although it began running deficits again after that"? I will delete this if no one explains. Does this make Romney look good (by showing that he did better than his successor), or look bad (by showing that his fiscal improvements were not longlasting), or neither? I think neither. And if we delete "although it began running deficits again after that" then Note 13 should correspondingly be shortened:

After making these deletions, then it would make sense to ensure that the footnotes fully support what's left. Any objections?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the obvious question is, Why are you picking at this scab now? Aren't there other articles that you are interested in fine-tuning, with a decision on this article's FA candidacy imminent?
Alternative, "official" sources for state figures with links that are still alive and accurate are:
Massachusetts Treasurer 2007 disclosure documents see the 11-21-2007 supplement page A-10
Massachusetts Treasurer 2008 disclosure documents see the 12-04-2008 supplement page A-12 Dezastru (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
As you know, I was merely attempting to repair a dead link tag. Dead link tags are not conducive to featured status, in my experience. However, you reverted my removal of the tag. If you think that removal of a dead link tag is like picking at a scab, then I disagree. Now you have finally seen fit to comment over a day later. Thanks.
Primary sources such as the ones you've mentioned are not as good as secondary sources. For a good secondary source on this subject, see: Point of Reckoning: Two Decades of State Budget Trends by Cameron Huff, page 24 (March 2008). Huff writes that, in 2007 dollars, the Massachusetts surpluses were roughly $1.3 billion in 2004, $700 million in 2005, and $800 million in 2006, in contrast to almost $2 billion excess of spending over revenue in 2002.
Why don't you pick whichever source you want, put it in the article, remove the dead link tag, and stop accusing other editors of picking scabs? And please, by all means, don't actually address why this article discusses Massachusetts finances after Romney left office.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
When I wrote this Note, I was having trouble finding figures for the actual state surpluses/deficits. As to why to include the figures for FY 2007 and 2008, FY 2007 includes the last half year of Romney's term (July 2006 - June 2007) and FY 2008 includes some lasting effects of Romney's term. In other words, I was trying to reflect the lag period (just like some of the fiscal results in Obama's term were due to Bush, and if he wins, some in Romney's term will be due to Obama) (and of course both are due to lots of other factors). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
In any case, I've replaced the troublesome source with the state's 2008 Information Statement Supplement that Dezastru found and links to above, which gives the same numbers. And the first number, the $594.4M surplus for FY05, is also given by the Boston Globe source that is used. So that provides a secondary source confirmation of the primary source, since if one is the right 'official' number, the rest line up too. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The Monsanto-Romney-Connection

Mitt Romney was intimately involved with Monsanto’s transition into biotechnology: from PCBs, Agent Orange, bovine growth hormone, NutraSweet, IUD to genetically modified (GM) seed and herbicides (Glyphosate/Roundup)

Our article does mention Monsanto as one of Romney's clients while at Bain & Company, but it doesn't go into much detail about what Mitt did for any particular client. As for all the rest of what Barrett wrote ... When you're a management consultant, you're acting on behest of the client, even if what the client does is ugly. And the objection in the story that "Monsanto/Bain teams “did not put an adequate emphasis on esoteric or societal factors” because they were “focused on this quarter or that quarter or next year’s financials.”" ... well, that describes 90 percent of capitalism. It's the way it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Why are you quoting Dr. Earl Beaver, who was Monsanto's waste director during the Bain period? That is not the point. Bill Maher discusses GMOs with Gary Hirshberg of 'Just Label It', Sei --80.136.38.242 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
So Romney was "intimately involved" in Monsanto developing PCB's and Agent Orange?!?! Really?!?! You do know that the country has been using products with PCB's in it for over a century (Monsanto started marketing a PCB in 1930), which as you may now is well before Romney was born, and Agent Orange was first used in Vietnam in 1961 or 62 when Romney was still in grade school? So why don't you take your conspiracy nonsense somewhere else... Ckruschke (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Also, the NutraSweet scandal, which involved rushing through the approval of aspartame, occurred before Monsanto bought the company. However the connection reflects on Romney, we cannot only give it the weight that the media has assigned it, so it is adequately covered already. TFD (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2012

Fix broken link, External links, CongLinks, parameter s/b washpo = gIQA3p0t9O 184.78.81.245 (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

'The Making of Mitt Romney' references

As of now, refs to making-of series of articles in Boston Globe linking to original old archived pages. There's a new illustrated version with good navigation between the parts that could be used instead: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/ --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that ever since this series came out, and especially in the last three years, the Globe has been moving different parts of the series in and out of their paywall.  One month parts 3 and 5 will be behind the paywall, a few months later they'll be out but parts 1 and 6 will be behind, etc.  Because this series forms the backbone of the article's sourcing, we took a defensive stance and tried to supply as many different versions as possible.  It may be that all the parts are nicely visible right now, in the run-up to the election, but I suspect that a month or two from now they'll be back to their old tricks.  So I think the alternate sources for the series should stay in the cites.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I mean primary link to official BG site in each reference. For example, part 1: Now used, New --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, those could be changed.  The 'new' ones are actually the original ones, when the series first came out, that have often been unavailable since then.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Entitlements

Regarding entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, this Wikipedia article correctly said that he wants to raise the eligibility ages.  I have added: "while favoring lower-income seniors."

The cited source says: "We will slow the growth in benefits for higher-income retirees....lower-income seniors will receive the most generous benefits."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This aspect of his proposals is better covered in the Political positions of Mitt Romney subarticle. "While favoring lower-income seniors" is vague to the point of being uninformative, and there isn't room in the main bio to go into the details of his plans for entitlement program reforms. There is no mention, for example, of his proposal to block-grant Medicaid, which a number of analysts say would actually hurt lower-income (Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligible) beneficiaries.  Dezastru (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC) 
The material I quoted from the cited source is very clear.  He wants means-testing for Social Security and Medicare, so that less benefits flow to rich people.  This would obviously save the government money, just like raising the eligibility ages would save the government money, and therefore it seems quite skewed for us to only mention the latter aspect of the cited source.  We ought to mention both or neither.  To reduce the vagueness, we could say "while providing the most benefits for lower-income seniors".  That's crystal clear.  Generally speaking, we should describe his political positions, rather than examining their potential effects and ramifications and rationales, and anyway there's nothing in the cited source (or in the political positions subarticle) about how block-grants might hurt poor seniors more than rich seniors.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The previous version of that section was fine. It doesn't delve into any of the other aspects of his proposals either, such as introducing premium support (vouchers) and market-based competition among health insurance providers for the Medicare program; cutting funding for Amtrak and Planned Parenthood; capping government spending at 20% of GDP; repealing the Davis-Bacon Act; and block-granting Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, and job training ("Let’s extend that conservative, small-government philosophy across the entire social safety net"). Many might consider it quite skewed for us to fail to mention all of those cuts, or for us to limit our description of the Ryan budget proposals to the tax bracketing differences between Romney and Ryan, but those decisions were made to keep the size of the political positions section at a minimum. Let's not forget that as this section of the article was being redeveloped about a month ago, there were complaints that the section had become too large, and a fair amount of material was removed to the subarticle or was not added at all. Better to keep the content as it has been until now and leave any further elaboration on the details on his policy proposals to the subarticle.  Dezastru (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC) 
As I said in the edit summary, "We ought not focus only on the more harsh and unpopular aspects of Romney's plan described in the cited source." Our weighting should reflect that of the cited source.  No one has objected to the cited source, but if anyone feels that it weights things improperly, then suggest another source.  In the mean time, I strongly object to the reversion of what should be a very straightforward edit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. - This article is currently on probation, and you two appear to be breaking 1RR. Also, its at FAC right now, so comments like these about specific issues with content should be made there not here, so that the FAC reviewers and delegates can accurately evaluate the article. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC) 
I wasn't planning on any more edits to this section of the article without getting more input and consensus about it.  I'll bring it up at the FAC page tomorrow, if no consensus emerges here at the article talk page.  Maybe someone can convince me I'm wrong, or convince Dezastru he's wrong. This issue only became apparent to me from reading the cited source; it does not jump out at you when you only read the Wikipedia article. Incidentally, The Boston Globe says, "Some version of means testing is likely to be a centerpiece of a proposed 'grand bargain' on entitlement reform and deficit reduction, with future retirees who reach higher income levels likely to bear a significant part of the burden."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not making any judgements on who is most correct. I'm just reminding you guys that the article is currently on probation and at FAC, so the edit-warring is both ill-advised and ill-timed, IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
(ec)What the "Political positions" section says can only skim the surface of these complex topics. If we're going to mention means testing, then we should say so, with a link to Means test, rather than use an ambiguous phrase like "while providing the most benefits for lower-income seniors" (most as a percentage of the total benefits given out? that's what readers would assume, but not what means testing is about). I tend to agree with Dezastru that if there's one thing that should be added here, it's the proposal to block-grant Medicaid and send it back to the states. This could have tremendous consequences, not just for the poor and disabled but also for the middle and upper middle classes, who rely on it for nursing home care for elderly parents. There are lots of sources on this, this CNN piece for example or this NPR piece. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd have no objection to wlinking means test. Also, I certainly did not break 1RR; I inserted something new, Dezastru reverted due mainly to vagueness, I inserted something much less vague, and he reverted that too. Regarding block-grants, I disagree with mentioning any possible consequences; we already agreed to simply state positions without discussing possible consequences (like Romney's claim that the FMA would help children). Anyway, the alleged adverse consequences of block-granting depend largely on what strings are attached by Congress.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

Would anyone object if we add to the sentence in question? It would say: "In addition to calling for cuts in federal government spending to help reduce the national debt,[356] Romney has proposed gradually raising the eligibility ages for receipt of Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement program benefits, accompanied by means-testing and by block grants to states.[356]"

This conveys a lot of info in very few words. Whereas cutting Amtrak, NPR, and other programs is essentially covered by the first part of the sentence, no part of the sentence covers means-testing or block-grants unless this is added. By the way, I expanded the lead for the means-testing article today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It conflates three separate things. The Ford Field proposals for the big three entitlement programs were:
  • Social Security: Raise eligibility age, means testing.
  • Medicare: Raise eligibility age, means testing, premium support for competitive private programs.
  • Medicaid: Block grants to states, cap rate of growth (later stated as inflation plus one percent, see first debate for example, which means it is unlikely to keep up with healthcare costs). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
That's a helpful breakdown. As you can see, the sentence as it stands (in this Wikipedia article) already suggests incorrectly that eligibility ages will be raised for other entitlement programs like Medicaid. One solution is to be more precise: "In addition to calling for cuts in federal government spending to help reduce the national debt, Romney has proposed means-testing and gradually raising the eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare, while also proposing limited block grants for Medicaid, and subsidies to give seniors a private alternative to Medicare.[356]." The other solution would be to use exemplary language: "In addition to calling for cuts in federal government spending to help reduce the national debt,[356] Romney has proposed means-testing and gradually raising the eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare, along with other changes to entitlement programs.[356]" Seems to me that either way would make the sentence much more balanced and accurate. Reining in the growth of entitlements is Romney's central mission to help the economy (aside from tax reform and spending cuts), so it seems apt for us to try and get it right. (Swing state women say that reproductive health is the primary women's issue, but that doesn't mean they think it's the primary issue overall---they don't.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Medicaid is important enough that I would include it explicitly, if this text is opened up. "In addition to calling for cuts in federal government spending to help reduce the national debt, Romney has proposed means-testing and gradually raising the eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare, while providing premium support to foster private alternatives to the latter. He advocates block grants to states for Medicaid, while capping the rate of growth at general inflation plus one percent." Wasted Time R (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. I'd prefer to cap the last sentence at the word "growth" because the precise percentage rate is subarticle material, but whatever. Incidentally, I left a message at Indopug's talk page regarding his recent edit to the lead. Also, the OTRS queue now stands at 31 days, so I submitted an expedite request at the OTRS Noticeboard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
"In addition to calling for cuts in federal government spending to help reduce the national debt, Romney has proposed means-testing and gradually raising the eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare, while providing premium support to foster private alternatives to the latter. He advocates block grants to states for Medicaid, while capping the rate of growth at general inflation plus one percent." That would be a fairer phrasing than what Anythingyouwant originally proposed. However, such phrasing would then place undue weight on the entitlements reforms, rather than also providing more detailed information about the non-entitlements and non-defense spending cuts. All of these components of Romney's proposals can be more effectively dealt with in the subarticle. As for the inaccurate phrasing in the current version of the article (ie, "and other entitlements programs"), that can be easily modified. For example: "In addition to calling for cuts in federal government spending to help reduce the national debt,[356] Romney has proposed measures intended to limit the growth of entitlement programs, such as introducing means testing and gradually raising the eligibility ages for receipt of Social Security and Medicare." This should satisfy Anythingyouwant's original suggestion that something needed to be mentioned about means testing. Dezastru (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The last bolded suggestion by Dezastru sounds appropriate. This is the least we should do here in this main article, given the details that we also provide about other subjects (see personal wealth subsection, details about Governor Patrick's budget deficit, et cetera).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Incumbent

This is a word not really used outside the USA. It would be useful to put a hyperlink to an explaination of this word. [ 12:59, October 28, 2012‎ Jamesthecat ]

I'm not so sure about that. This Daily Mail (England) search shows a lot of uses of "incumbent", as does This search of The Age (Australia). I think linking it would bring criticism for overlinking of common English words. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

New image

I finally got a pre-2000 image.  OTRS is pending.  I inserted it into the section on the 1994 Senate run.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Good work, hope the OTRS comes through without a snag.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC) 
The OTRS ticket number is #2012102710001291. The OTRS staff has asked for some more information from the copyright holder. Once that's provided, they'll mark the image {{permissionOTRS}}.  In the meantime, they've marked it {{OTRS received}}.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
All set. Thanks to HJ Mitchell for expediting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article Status

"This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria."

This is all very well, but ultimatly is should be the aim of writing to present relevant and well-researched topics, not to chase awards, which are often based on more arbitrary criteria. [ 12:59, October 28, 2012‎ Jamesthecat ]

The two goals are not mutually exclusive. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, very different, but not mutually exclusive. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox line entry on children

The infobox entry on chldren says "5 (including Taggart)". To me, this implies Taggart is not always included in the count (eg. foster child, step child, adopted child). But he is none of these things. Why does it not simply say "5"? The fact that he has a wikipedia entry does not, in my view, seem relevant for the infobox. It should be dealt with in the article text if that is the only purpose. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Just having the number would be fine with me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Curse infoboxes. Well Tagg is in the infobox because "only notable kids should be in the infobox", (notable in this case meaning having their own page), so it is acceptable for him to be there. however, if we want to put just the number "5" I think that looks alright too Lady Lotus (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
If inclusion is per a guideline or policy, then it should stay. Just seemed like a red herring... hamiltonstone (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Details are at Template:Infobox person.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Just put "5". Template documentation is not Wikipedia policy, and any template documentation that encourages us to confuse or distract the reader should be ignored. —Designate (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Bain Cap returns

"By 1999, Bain Capital was on its way towards becoming one of the foremost private equity firms in the nation,[70] having increased its number of partners from 5 to 18, with 115 employees overall, and $4 billion under its management.[65][71] The firm's average annual return on investments was 113 percent.[59][93]"

According to reference number 59, "At that growth rate, a hypothetical $1,000 investment would grow to $39.6 million before fees." I double checked the math, and at a 113% CAGR, $1000 does turn into 39 million. It's not possible for Bain Cap to have had returns like that; a 113% CAGR means that a million dollar initial investment would turn into $40 billion. Bain Capital, even in its initial days, would have run funds that were much much larger than $1 million and I'm sure Romney was personally invested in Bain Cap funds to the tune of $1m+ (since he was a senior consultant at Bain & Co. previously and would already have been easily a millionaire). However, his current net worth is nowhere near $40bn, so this number simply cannot be accurate. If Romney had ever accumulated anywhere near $40m, he would be well into the Forbes list of richest billionaires.

(Re reference number 59: Just because the American Enterprise Institute struggles with arithmetic doesn't mean Wikipedia should too.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.99.65 (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

IP68, thanks for your comment. If it's okay with you, I'd like to wait a bit before answering, so that maybe the lead editor will be able to address it. His power is still out, due to Hurricane Sandy. But if you'd like a faster answer, I could give it a try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The AEI piece says "During the 14 years Romney headed Bain Capital, the firm’s average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was a staggering 113 percent." In the past the article used this exact metric - which is a specialized metric for private equity firms and the like - along with a link to the Internal rate of return article, but that got lost along the way. I've restored it, along with an existing WSJ source's calculation that the average annual return to investors was in the 50-80 percent range. Thanks for bringing this up. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article is a good example of the problems Wikipedia faces with maintaining a NPOV when everyone can edit everything. The best solution would probably be a rewrite from a more balanced POV. They (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This is unspecific/vague. If you think the article is unbalanced, please discuss examples. Hekerui (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
You are not allowed to remove the POV tag until the dispute has been resolved. The talkpage is full of people complaining about the POV. Please don't editwar. They (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
You added the tag and you don't give any examples. There is no substance here, hence no dispute. Hekerui (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Stop reverting me, start reading the talkpage. I recommend starting at the top-left. For example, the first section header is "Whitewashing". They (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the last edit in that section was more than two weeks ago. Why don't you get specific instead of stating you don't like the article. Hekerui (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you follow the rules and/or focus your attention elsewhere? I have a list of typos on my talkpage. Please help me by fixing a few of those while I spent some time pondering possible improvements to this article. They (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
"They", I apologize for accidentally reverting your talk page comment. I meant to revert your last article edit. Anyway, you have correctly reverted me here at the talk page before I had a chance to do so. You need to give some specific rationale for slapping an NPOV tag on the entire article. Is there a specific section that you're most concerned about?Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
No worries, we all love eachother. Gimme a sec, I am terribly slow, sorry. They (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not a native speaker, so maybe I am misinterpreting the word "hostile", but a sentence like:
When the French expressed opposition to the U.S. role in the Vietnam War, Romney debated them in return, and their hostility on the subject reinforced Romney's support for the U.S. effort.
seems POV to me. Were the French people really hostile? I think they were convinced they were right, but that isn't hostility as far as I know. They (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Romney got the door slammed in his face by anti-Vietnam-War people in France. You need to go look at the footnotes at the end of the sentence. I will go to the source now to get a direct quote for you. Just a sec.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote: You knock on the door very simply, you say, 'Bonjour, Madame. Nous sommes deux jeunes Americains,'. Romney would recall. That means 'We are two young Americans.' And continuing, 'We're talking to people in your neighborhood about our faith and wonder if you'd like to .....' BANG! The door shuts. And most people assumed we were salesmen and said, 'No, I don't want any,' and would shut the door. A lot of people would say, 'Americans? Get out of Vietnam!' BANG!

That is not hostility, that is how I treat all Jehovah Witnesses/travelling salesmen who knock on my door. I checked the dictionary, it says stuff like firm, decisive, resolute, unshakable, persistent, but not hostile. They (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my internet connection is slow, and my computer is slow on top of that. You quote the Boston Globe:


There's also a footnote to the New York Times:


These two quotes together support what the Wikipedia article says: "When the French expressed opposition to the U.S. role in the Vietnam War, Romney debated them in return, and their hostility on the subject reinforced Romney's support for the U.S. effort." Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not all sources follow NPOV. The source that claims that the French people were hostile doesn't have a policy on neutrality afaik. We shouldn't copy-paste their POV. In reality the people weren't really hostile, they disliked him for being a religious fanatic/door-to-door salesman/American, but I have yet to see any evidence of any hostility. Or do I simply misunderstand what being hostile means? Once in a while I slam the door in someones face, usually because they ring the doorbell early in the morning, but that doesn't make me hostile, or does it? They (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you say you're not interested and shut the door, then you're not hostile. But if you throw a tirade and slam the door, then you're hostile. Right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
We have to look at both sides of the conflict. Considering the fact he spent up to 12 hours a day knocking on peoples door trying to convince them they were going to burn in hell eternally the French people were really nice to him, because they did not kill him. Simply shouting at someone who knocks on your door while you are having a bath, or even worse, have a hangover is very polite actually. Chasing them with a knife and threatening to skin them alive is hostile. They (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If you read the sentence it seems like the French people were impolite to Romney, but of course it is the other way around. That is just one example of the POV in this article. They (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Certainly there are different degrees of hostility. Hostile can mean characteristic of an enemy, or it can simply mean antagonistic, or it can just mean “not friendly, warm, or generous; not hospitable.”[1]. I think in context, the Wikipedia article clearly is not implying that the French were Romney's enemies. Anyway, the New York Times material that I quoted specifically says "hostile" so we're following a generally reliable news source. If you can find a reliable source saying that Romney was impolite to the French, then maybe we can include that too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we have a cultural difference here, but isn't knocking on peoples doors (without an invitation) in order to tell them they will burn in hell eternally in order to scare them so you can convert them to your own religion terribly impolite? I certainly would consider it impolite, and I know my neighbours do too. I think we already have a reliable source that says that Romney was doing that. Like all European autodidacts I learned English via the computer and TV. In videogames, NPC's who start to attack you become hostile first. They express their hostility by attacking you. I understand that it is possible to be hostile in a nonviolent way, but characterizing the French people as hostile based on a totally normal and socially acceptable response to being bothered by someone is not NPOV. They (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said, if you can find a reliable source saying that Romney was impolite to the French, then maybe we can include that too. In the mean time, please heed the advice that you have deleted from your user talk page. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
You are attacking a strawman. I never said that we should include a new claim that Romney was impolite to the French, and you know it. I said the current wording is not NPOV, hence the POV tag. They (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
You've repeatedly argued that Romney was "impolite" to the French rather than vice versa.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
He was, but you seem to draw the conclusion that therefore we must include that statement in the article. What I am saying is: he did something that can be considered impolite to them, they responded in a normal and socially acceptable way (some of those responses were also impolite) therefore it is not NPOV to repeat the claim from the source. But fuck it, you wouldn't understand, IDGAF. They (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think the article should say he was impolite, because we have no reliable sources that draw that conclusion. Until we have such sources, it is just POV-pushing on your part. Many French people were hostile toward the Vietnam War, and many of them expressed that hostility toward Romney. That is simply factual. The Wikipedia article does not address whether they were justified in their hostility against the war. Personally, I think they were. I myself marched against the Vietnam War, so I sympathize with the French viewpoint. But there is no factual dispute about whether they were hostile toward Romney about (and because of) Vietnam.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
And there you go attacking the same strawman again. Now you even claim I am pov pushing because it would be if it wasn't a strawman argument. The Globe says: "Day after day, he knocked on doors urging people, most of them Catholic but many of them hostile to religion and often to the United States as well, to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormonism was a religion of mystery to most French people, recognized mostly for its history of polygamy and, in a country that takes its wine seriously, for its prohibition against alcohol." They (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The French hostility was perfectly understandable, but it was hostility nonetheless. The Wikipedia article is pretty clear about what Romney was doing, and why many French people would have been bothered by it. And the Wikipedia article says in a Note: "Romney's task was complicated by proselytizing for a religion that prohibits alcohol in a country known for it. He reflected upon this in 2002: "As you can imagine, it's quite an experience to go to Bordeaux and say, 'Give up your wine! I've got a great religion for you!'"Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the psychology here is fairly clear. Nobody much likes people coming their door selling things, whether it's religion or Fuller brushes. So yes, it's a bit forward for people like Romney to be doing this, and in return it can get a somewhat hostile response. Add in some general antipathy towards Americans due to Vietnam, and you get the dynamic that happened. But whether the exact word 'hostility' is used or not, it should be possible to get across what took place, and this certainly does not warrant an 'npov' tag on the article! Wasted Time R (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I seem to be unable to explain what I mean, but fuck it, its fixed now. Wikipedia is really slow today for some reason. They (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC) p.s. Awesome name!


Misuse of NPOV tag

An NPOV tag is supposed to be slapped on an article only as a last resort. See template:NPOV.  This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.  The template is supposed to be removed when there is consensus on the talkpage (or the NPOV Noticeboard) that the issue has been resolved.  In the present case, two editors have so far said that it is resolved, and only one editor is advocating the tag.  The NPOV tag is also supposed to be removed when no satisfactory explanation of the neutrality issue has been given, and the fact that this Wikipedia article accurately conveys information from the New York Times renders the explanation for the NPOV tag unsatisfactory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the neutrality issue has been explained in a way that should satisfy everyone, and so far you have posted 0 solutions for the problem. Instead you have tried to editwar to prevent WP:the wrong version. The claim that two editors have said that it is resolved is a lie, check the history page. They (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The solution that I have proposed is to continue following the reliable reporting of the New York Times instead of following your personal opinion to the contrary.  I reverted you once, whereas, you have revert-warred several times today.  Hekerui and myself are the two editors who have said that the issue is resolved, and the inappropriateness of the NPOV tag is clear.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
He said it was resolved before I even had time to post a comment on the talkpage. Go buy a trout somewhere else. Check the history. They (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Over an hour seems like plenty of time to me.  You clearly did not use the tag as a last resort. In any event, you have given no satisfactory explanation of the neutrality issue, which is ample reason for removing the tag.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
What is unclear to you? Meh, don't bother answering. They (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this was a misuse of the npov tag.  It is indeed only a measure of last resort, and certainly not warranted over this narrow issue of Romney's interactions with the French.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, you should've spent a bit more time reading. I fixed that problem already, and the tag is gone. They (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you removed the tag, but the change you made seems even more POV than what it replaced.  Every sentence in this article has been scrutinized though a GA nom and two rigorous FA noms.  It might make more sense to discuss things here before make changes and accusations.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, because it is! Finally someone who gets it! I love you. It is POV, but it is POV that was mentioned in a source that we consider to be reliable. Just like the statement about the French being hostile. The person I debated earlier seemed to think it is impossible to remove POV if it is mentioned in a reliable source (even if that source uses Romney himself as a source). I think the best solution is to remove the POV for both sides. They (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand, "They" has edited the article in a way "They" thinks is not NPOV, to prove a point.  I think the sentence needs to be improved, mainly to make it matter-of-fact with less characterization.  On October 7, I inserted this clunky version, which did not last long:

Maybe that October 7 version could be modified and inserted into the article.  Something like this:


Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. The clunky version is far too clunky. And the sources don't support the claim. I fixed the POV problem you caused again, I hope finally understand what it is. They (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I changed it to this: "When the French expressed opposition to the U.S. role in the Vietnam War, Romney debated them in return, and his views were reinforced when they raised their voices and slammed their doors."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Bad idea. First the French seemed irrational, and you wouldn't allow me to fix that because it had a reliable source. Because of that we were forced to use a more balanced but still POV version. Your version is unfair to the French people. As I said before: I think the best solution is to remove the POV for both sides. You want a version without the POV about Romney, but you seem to want to keep the POV about the French people.
In the source both sides are POV:
When the French expressed opposition to the U.S. role in the Vietnam War, Romney debated them in return, but their hostility on the subject only hardened Romney's hawkish views..
Examples of onesided POV:
Romney's hawkish views hardened when the French expressed opposition to the U.S. role in the Vietnam War.
and
When the French expressed opposition to the U.S. role in the Vietnam War, Romney debated them in return, and their hostility on the subject reinforced Romney's support for the U.S. effort..
An NPOV example would be:
Romney's views were reinforced by the French that who expressed opposition to the U.S. role in the Vietnam War. They (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You mean the French who? Mindy Dirt (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I apologize, I am not a native speaker. Thank you! They (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No apology necessary. Can you fix it in the article? Mindy Dirt (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The sources indicate that only the French who were hostile to him reinforced his views. There is no indication that those who disagreed in measured tones or politely reinforced his views.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Surprising move, finally a good solution. Thank you. They (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm okay with the language that ended up here, except that it never indicated Romney's views on Vietnam that were reinforced. I've done that now by adding a little bit to the description of the earlier Stanford sit-in counter-protest. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor prose and punc edits

I have been doing bits of small-scale tweaking in the prose and punctuation areas. When I try to save my edits I get a "Wikimedia Foundation Error Report". This doesn't happen on any other page that I edit. I am wondering whether I have been singled out by the Romney forces as an obvious subversive, being a Brit and all that? Anyway, most of my edits haven't got through, so I will give up for the time being. Maybe I will be allowed in after Election Day. Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Brian, same here so don't get paranoid :-) Graham Colm (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I've been getting that too, but the edits often go through. Maybe there's some sort of incantation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Obviously Mitt's getting nervous. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I've gotten this on all of my recent six edits, but five went through. As I'm the most frequent editor of this page, it should show me more respect, but clearly it is an equal opportunity Wikimedia Fail. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Cancer link?

The Obama Campaign has claimed that Mitt Romney gave a woman Cancer. This should be in the article, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.67.115 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that's just an exaggerated perspective on an already exaggerated negative campaign ad. Of no importance here. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Congregation or parish?

Which is most common/accurate for Mormons, "head of his local congregation" or "head of his local parish"? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the Mormon term is "Stake" consisting of multiple "Wards" - IIRC, Romney is described as a ward bishop? Collect (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The term "parish" is not used in the LDS Church. "Congregation" is more generic and not related to a particular religion. Also, I understand Romney was both a ward bishop and a stake president, two different responsibilities at different times. 72Dino (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Lynnette and I were in the same ward as Ann and Mitt Romney when he was in the bishopric in Cambridge Ward; he was later stake president for Boston MA Stake. FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Polygamy again

In note 17 (I'm talking about the big fat notes rather than the footnotes), we might want to add this quote from Romney: "The practice of polygamy is abhorrent, it’s awful, and it drives me nuts that people who are polygamists keep pretending to use the umbrella of my church....My church abhors it, it excommunicates people who practice it, and it's got nothing to do with my faith." If nothing else, this might innoculate the article against bogus assertions of glossing over the subject. I'm neutral about including this, but would welcome comments. The quote is from "Romney's stance on civil unions draws fire". Boston Globe. 2005-02-23.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The p-word does not appear once in this article. Nor should it. Let sleeping dogs lie, please! Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I tend to agree with you. It probably won't come up during the FAC process. I don't see any reason why it should.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It might be more appropriate at Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012 — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion was initiated by Sockpuppetmaster Findblogging

In the section of Foreign Affairs there should be added that Mitt Romney is committed in punishing Turkey for its growing anti-semitic stance and its recent provocative acts against Israel, and he will attempt to pass a national legislation for recognising the Armenian Genocide.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Findblogging (talk • contribs)

I am unable to find anything that says Romney is committed in punishing Turkey for anything. Arzel (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Me neither. The article Findblogging cited says Turkey is slightly worried about his pro-Israel stance. It says nothing about genocide. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
And even if he is, this would be better suited for Political positions of Mitt Romney than here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Guys you are right there is no actual website that writes specifically about his policies against Islamic Fundamentalist Turkey. However he explains his view on Turkey on his website:

"To ensure Israel’s security, Mitt Romney will work closely with Israel to maintain its strategic military edge. The United States will work intensively to shore up the now fraying relationships with Israel that have underpinned peace in the Middle East for decades. The United States must forcefully resist the emergence of anti-Israel policies in Turkey "

Israeli newspaper Haaretz posted yesterday: "I share the opinion of most Israelis that a victory for Mitt Romney would be preferable for Israel. My unease with Barack Obama preceded his 2008 victory, but it was reinforced by his 2009 Cairo speech, his cultivation of Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his coolness toward Benjamin Netanyahu. " Israeli media has emphasised the pro Muslim position of Barack Obama, many times at the expense of Israel. This will be ended by Mitt Romney's election due to the Republican support for Israel's safety, against the occupation of Cyprus, recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the liberation of the Kurdish minority in Iran, Turkey and Syria. When I find out more things about it I'll post them on Political positions of Mitt Romney section. [07:52, November 4, 2012‎ Findblogging]

What you quoted is the opinion of a once-a-month op-ed column for the Haaretz English edition, and not the editorial stance of the paper itself. And it says nothing about Cyprus, Kurds, or Armenians. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually there are 2 articles that I try to find out which discuss the aspirations of the Republicans to answer back to Turkish aggressivness in the Middle East and its nuclear aspirations like Iran. When I find them I will defintetely post them here for futher discussion. Findblogging (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Create NPOV Tag

I've been watching this page for months. I've tried balancing it multiple times, and it still seems to read like a prospectus for a mutual fund rather than a biography of a living person. It's the subtle, but consistent positive spin on every aspect of his life. It isn't balanced, it's carefully chosen language that is intended to sell Mitt Romney to the public. That's not the point of Wikipedia. "Part of a wave of top students" - are you kidding me? That's technically true, but it isn't encyclopedia language, nor is "his reasoning for moving into management consulting was to prepare to be a CEO." Really? A 20-something kid went into management consulting to become a CEO, not for the money? And how would you even prove that? It's pure speculation of a person's motivations. Motivations are not the purview of wikipedia. This sort of tone goes on and on and on. People have tried to balance it out and it never happens. I move to apply an NPOV tag, because there will never be consensus on this page and to pretend like there is, is ludicrous.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I recommend that no discussion on this proposal occur until Wednesday. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
As if anyone will care then. If it's biased now, it should receive a tag now.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I can guarantee that you won't get agreement between now and Tuesday. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
What else can you guarantee? A tag should have been placed on here long ago. I've seen multiple editors bullied off this page. The NPOV tag doesn't even say the article leans one way or another. It just says we can't agree on whether it is neutral or not. And we cannot agree on whether it is neutral or not. Therefore it needs a tag. It has needed a tag for months. Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This article just passed FA review and now you want to tar it with a NPOV tag? How is this not a politically motivated turn of events? Arzel (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is astonishingly biased. Including nonexistent achievements in the upfront summary? Are you kidding me? Please link to the FA review.Jasonnewyork (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
At the very top of this talk page is the notification that the article is a current FA candidate. WR among others, spent a ton of time going through this article to make sure that it adheared to WP policies and that the statements matched the sources. Maybe you should cut them some slack and rethink your own biases. You can start by reverting your previous change. Arzel (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Awesome revert explanation. "There really is no question to his success". LOL. Gotta love Wikipedia and its nonbias. Whatever, you guys took over this page successfully for the entire campaign. You did an impressive job. Someone should hire you - if they haven't already.Jasonnewyork (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Jason, if the cited sources are reliable, and they say Romney's stint at the Olympics was successful, are we supposed to say it was a miserable failure? I'm a volunteer, no one pays me, and no one outside Wikipedia contacts me about this article, so please try reasoning instead of accusing. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say to call it a miserable failure. Don't put words in my mouth. I changed it to "he served as CEO and president of the Olympics." That's neutral. Saying "it was a successful stint" is editorializing (even if you're quoting the source). It's like saying "Clinton was a successful president." Um, no. We would never say that, because it is editorializing.Jasonnewyork (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
If reliable sources say that Einstein was a successful physicist, or Columbus was a successful explorer, or Bill Gates is a successful businessman, there would be nothing wrong with saying that in their Wikipedia articles. The language you suggest gives readers no clue about how Romney did at the Olympics, whereas reliable sources say he was successful. Bill Clinton was impeached; he had some successes and some failures, and I'm not aware that reliable sources have yet delivered a historical verdict on his presidency. Same with Mitt Romney's governorship.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Anythingyouwant. Jason, the FA review is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mitt Romney/archive2, and has been promoted (the bot is yet to catch up and archive). Several of us involved in the process are not even Americans, let alone republicans. The article has four hundred sources, and all of us are open to suggestions that don't contradict these reliable sources, or contravene policy (WP:NPOV and WP:BLP in particular). Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Jasonnewyork, there is no guideline that says that "Motivations are not the purview of wikipedia." Certain biographical subjects have been explored in depth by mainstream sources, and motivations can thus be described and sourced. Moreover, in this particular case that you mention, the motivations of becoming a CEO and of making a lot of money are in no way mutually exclusive, so I am not sure what you are objecting to. As for "Part of a wave of top students", you agree that it's true but say it's not encyclopedic language. In my experience 'encyclopedic language' is mostly in the eye of the beholder; a requirement for FA articles is that their prose be 'engaging', and that's what this is trying to be - interest the reader into seeing how Romney's earlier career fit into an evolution of where American top students headed. The other specific thing you don't like is describing his stint as Olympics Games head as successful. Well, there are tangible metrics that can be measured - did the Games go on as scheduled, did they avoid any major security or other incidents (cf. Munich 1972), were they financially sound or did they plunge the host city into long-term debt (cf. Montreal 1976), and so forth. By those metrics, the 2002 Winter Games were a success, and sources have indicated as such. And in terms of the personal success of a Games head, did the Games lead to greater things in that person's career? In Romney's case it allowed him to run for statewide office later that year, which the sources used here also establish. Indeed, if you look at Category:Presidents of Organising Committees for the Olympic Games, Romney looks like the one person who has most benefited from the experience in terms of career success (note there are people on the list like Sebastian Coe who achieved great success before becoming a Games head). Let's say the 2002 Games had featured a bad security incident attributed to poor preparation, or had ended in a financial mess. It's quite unlikely Romney would have run for office in the near future, and it's quite possible he would have gone back to his career at Bain Capital and never achieved further public visibility. That's what the article is trying to get across. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
And I suppose I should respond to the " ...you guys took over this page successfully for the entire campaign. You did an impressive job. Someone should hire you - if they haven't already." I am a volunteer here, nobody pays me, I have been involved in no campaign, I have contributed to no campaign, I have been in touch with no campaign. (I think the only time I was involved in any presidential campaign was handing out some flyers in 1972.) The same thing I have done here on the Mitt Romney article, I have done for the articles on Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joe Biden, John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Geraldine Ferraro, George W. Romney, George McGovern, and a bunch of others. You can safely assume that some of these people I admire and some I don't, and that some of these people I have voted for or would and some I haven't and won't. As for there being a 'group' on this article, you're right that some editors have been more effective here than others. But that has a lot less to do with ideological perspective and a lot more to do with how well people operate within the WP subculture and navigate the WP rules and guidelines. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
These are really thoughtful responses. Thank you. I overreacted. I stand by my belief that it is biased (as there is no way we would every use a sweeping generalization to say someone is "successful" unless we were inserting POV and the cherry picked facts on the budget are slanted in his favor), but there are more thoughtful discussions going on here than I realized. I do think the page is dominated by conservative editors, but there are clearly a few balanced ones too who have made it better than it might be otherwise. Thanks for responding thoughtfully to my fitful almost-rants.Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney's Budget Claims

There is a claim in the opening section that "Mitt Romney presided over eliminating a budget deficit..." seeming to imply that his balancing the Massachusetts budget was something noteworthy.  Balancing the budget is required by Massachusetts law.  Making it seem as if Romney went above and beyond on this point is misleading.  He balanced the budget.  But hey, so has every other governor.  Because it's required by law.  To phrase it as "he faced a budget deficit" is also misleading.  Any budget can be presented as being over or under depending on what you're leaving out and at what point in time you take the snapshot.  Perhaps it looks like a budget deficit on day one, but by day 120 they knew they'd have it covered by x, y or z.  Unless we're sussing out Massachusetts' budget from the early part of 2000, or we have a neutral source that clearly lays this out, it should not be included.  It is in there for POV push, and it is misleading.  At a bare minimum, there should be a sentence after the claim that he balanced the budget, something like "as is required by law of all governors".  But that is not my preference.  Like I said, this is a clear POV push.  Especially including it in the opening paragraphs.  Jasonnewyork (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says: "the state achieved surpluses of around $600–700 million during Romney's last two full fiscal years in office, although it began running deficits again after that." Are you saying that the state never ran any deficit?  Please look at the cited sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I am speaking of the opening section.  It says this in the third paragraph:  "He also presided over the elimination of a projected $1.2–1.5 billion deficit through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and the closure of corporate tax loopholes."  Let me say this another way.  The article implies that Romney inherited a budget deficit.  This is impossible, as a balanced budget is required by law.  The previous administration would have balanced the budget or provided means for it to balance (the law provide for carrying over of a deficit if the means by which it will be offset have been identified in the impending year).  This is not a Romney accomplishment.  It's merely something that would have happened in Massachusetts no matter what.  To imply that he had some looming deficit that he inherited and then had to overcome is just false.  Patently false.  It is inaccurate (and I will find a source to prove that if I must).  But all of that aside, what Mitt Romney did was balance the budget, which was part of his job, which was required by law, which was done by every other governor before him.  It is not noteworthy and certainly does not rise to the merits of belonging in the upfront section, because the budget would be balanced no matter what - the law requires it in Massachusetts.Jasonnewyork (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC) 
The opening section is called the "lead" (also spelled "lede").  It doesn't contain any footnotes, because it merely summarizes what's in the rest of the article.  If you want to argue that the lead is wrong, then you have to show either that it is not supported by anything in the rest of the article, or that it relies on something in the rest of the article that's wrong.
My last comment above quotes the Wikipedia article as saying that the state sometimes was "running deficits".  Do you disagree with that?  If so, why do you think the cited source is wrong?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see that the information we're discussing is supported by the information in the article.  I'm not arguing about the sourcing or the accuracy of the information (although I could, but that would be a much more cumbersome discussion).  I'm arguing about the relevance of the information and why this particular phrase made it to the lead.  Reread my previous argument.  It should make sense.  The fact that he managed deficits and surpluses is part of his job.  It's like saying the janitor filled and emptied the mop bucket.  It's part of the job.  It's something every governor did, and why it's highlighted in the lede is a mystery to me.  Like I said, he didn't inherit a deficit (even though it kinda sounds like that's the implication from the current wording), so any deficit he incurred would have been his own...and then he offset it.  Ok...   Why is this noteworthy enough to make it above the fold?Jasonnewyork (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Or to say it yet another way...if Romney had been the governor of a state that didn't have a balanced budget requirement (by law) or if he'd been faced with a truly noteworthy budget crisis, then this might be relevant.  But to pull it up to the lead, when all he was doing was managing the Massachusetts budget, feels like a POV push.  It's someone wanting to paint Romney as a budget champion, when in fact all he was doing was what Massachusetts law requires.  The numbers that you've got in there are (I'm sure) well sourced.  That doesn't make them relevant.  Any deficits were ones he created himself, and he made up for them.  Which is great, but it doesn't rise to the level of the lead of the article.Jasonnewyork (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC) 
From 1987 to 1992, Massachusetts ran up five successive years of deficits, totaling 3.5 billion dollars.[2] The budget passed by the legislature and signed by the governor is "law" that overrides any previous statute.  So, I do not agree with your unsupported assertion that Romney was merely doing what every Governor must do.  That's just incorrect.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Jasonnewyork, even in states that require balanced budgets, the important thing is how governors go about achieving them - what choices are made, who gets what and who doesn't get, that sort of thing.  So the sole sentence in the lead - "He also presided over the elimination of a projected $1.2–1.5 billion deficit through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and the closure of corporate tax loopholes." - tries to state how he did it.  As for why this is even in the lead at all, that's a legitimate question.  Let's say that we want the lead to describe the two most important things Romney did as governor.  Clearly Romneycare is the most important.  What would be second?  You could perhaps make a case for how Romney dealt with same-sex marriage, or how he dealt with the  Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or how he used the latter stages of his term to prep for running for prez.  But sources generally spend more time on the budget actions than any of those, and our article body spends more time on the budget actions than any of those, and so that's what's in the lead.  Is the lead perfect?  No, certainly not, WP leads never are.  In this case I would have liked the lead to say something about Romney's ideological shift during his career, and several times I introduced that into the lead, but it never stuck.  Lacking some numerical metric, like the ratings that members of Congress get from ADA/ACU/NJ/et al, it's hard to make concrete enough for other editors to buy into.  If I could insert one thing in red font into this article (and most others), it would be at the end of the lead and it would say, "Don't stop here, read the whole thing!"  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
"Balancing the budget" has two common meanings.  One, the statutorial one can be fulfilled by passing a budget with unrealistic assumptions which everybody knows will bleed red ink (including incurring huge additional unfunded liabilities) after which the actual situation bleeds red ink.   The other meaning is having the state actually avoid overall red ink for the year, I.E. referring to what actually happened, not the budget. I think that Jasonnewyork is referring to the former, and that the sources, Romney and the article are referring to the latter. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

1994 senatorial campaign and aftereffects

For weeks, the heading was "1994 senatorial campaign and aftermath". Today, Eustress removed that last word, because of negative connotations. I then replaced it with "aftereffects" which has no such connotations, and because the section includes some stuff after the election. Belchfire then erased "aftereffects" because it's somehow unencyclopedic. How it's unencyclopedic I know not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's my view that section headers describe the main thing that's in a section but not necessarily the only thing, so I'm okay with just that. But I'm also okay with the two other words. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney and Gun Control

An obvious omission in this article are Mitt Romney's stances on gun control and his passage of gun legislation in Massachussets. Why is there no mention?--Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There is some stuff about that subject in this Wikipedia article: "Romney supported raising various fees, including those for drivers' licenses and gun licenses, to raise more than $300 million." But mainly the subject is covered in sub-articles, such as the governorship article, and the political positions article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed; the passage of the Massachusetts law mostly just made permanent what had already been in effect, and isn't important enough for this article. The Governorship of Mitt Romney article is 10,474 words and the "Tenure, 2003–07" section in this article is only 1,448 words, so a lot is in the former that is not in the latter. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Was Jane Swift ever governor?

This is from the Boston Phoenix:

Extensive copyrighted material removed — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The first presidential vacancy occurred upon the death of President Harrison.  Vice-President Tyler began calling himself President, which set the precedent for future VP's to "become" President.  This was made official by the 25th Amendment in 1967, which says: "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." In view of all this, it seems that Mitt Romney may not have been the 70th governor.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no clue, but it's a decision for the Governor of Massachusetts article to make and us here to follow. And yes, for a couple of years now there has been a slow-motion edit battle over the 'predecessor' field in the infobox due to this. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
If reliable sources overwhelmingly say Mitt Romney was #70, then we could extrapolate from that whether Swift was governor.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Any phrase that starts "we could extrapolate from that" is probably not going to go down well here, reliable sources or not. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I support it the way it is now, with both Celucci and Swift listed, the latter as "acting". That means Romney was #70. The Massachusetts Constitution does not mention the title "acting governor". Swift remained Lieutenant Governor acting as governor. That's the official practice in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Constitution treats the position of Lieutenant Governor differently from how the federal Constitution treats the position of Vice President. The VP has an official duty: president of the Senate with a tiebreaking vote, and it would make little sense to say, for example, that Andrew Johnson was President of the US and president of the Senate at the same time. The Lieutenant Governor ordinarily has no official duties, so it makes sense to say that the LT remains LT even when the Governor's office becomes vacant. There will be a quiz later, once everyone has had a chance to read the preceding free law lecture.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Stars & Tags

This article does not deserve a star but it does deserve a tag - for NPOV. This is shameless and unabashed hard core selling going on here. One comes to Wikipedia for facts - not this rubbish. [23:08, November 6, 2012‎ 82.64.120.138]

In order for this kind of feedback to be useful, you have to be very detailed about what specific facts in this article you think are untrue, what specific facts you think are missing, and what sentences or phrases you consider 'selling'. Otherwise, the editors have nothing tangible to go on. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In divisive times

"In divisive times, Wikipedia brings political opponents together" on the Wikimedia Blog has a nice mention about this article and the Obama article both being FA going into Election Day. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Romney portal

Is this, Portal:Mitt Romney, a bit silly, given the sparsity of articles on him? I was annoyed that Obama had a portal, and a wikiproject, but there is enough material to justify the attention (barely). Would this be considered a form of politicizing WP, or am i being overly paranoid?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes :-) {grin} but give it time — at least until voting day Tuesday; or Inauguration day in January. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Reassessment may be in order in absence of a Romney inauguration. I think Portal:Mitt Romney looks great and is important due to prominence in the presidential election. What do you think? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems silly to me, and unlikely to grow any further. His 2012 campaign may have destroyed his political career. He's got enough political baggage for several candidates by now. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Whither "Political positions" subsection

A lot of tense and relevancy problems there now. What to do going forward? One approach would be to keep it as it is but cast it all in the past tense. Another choice would be to weed it down in size (for example, the comparison of his budget plan versus Ryan's are pretty unimportant now, even in a historical sense, as are the statements about whether he would propose abortion legislation). Another choice would be to keep only the very most important items and merge those into the 2012 campaign section proper, and then have a separate top-level "Political positions" section with a tiny summary and a "main" xref to the subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should there be any difference in relevancy between today and yesterday? With a change of tenses, everything there should still apply. Going forward, it would be ideal to have a very brief top-level Political Positions section, with a link to the subarticle. Right now isn't the best time to start working on converting to the latter though. Better to wait at least a month or so. The tense modification could start immediately, however. Dezastru (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Wasted. On a side note, it will be really interesting to see who continues to take an interest in this page moving forward.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
So apparently your interest is that now that the election is over you think that no one will notice if you try to get rid of anything positive for which Romney is known? Arzel (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
His positions are still his positions unless he comes out publicly and changes/denies them. I see absolutely no reason to "streamline" any of this page based on simply the personal opinion of "since he lost, we should gut all the work thats been done"... Ckruschke (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Yes his positions are his positions, and I don't think anyone is suggesting we "gut all the work thats been done". WastedTime is the one who has done most of that work, and he's the one suggesting the tweak. It is proposal to revise one section, and I agree with Wasted and Jason that some revision would be appropriate, and Wasted picks a good example. However, Ckruschke is correct that his positions remain his positions unless changed, so I'm not sure putting them in the past tense is quite the right approach. Does the section primarily deal with positions that he took into the 2012 campaign? If so, then they could be put into past tense in a slight rewrite that makes it clear that they were campaigning points (which do pass) as distinct from personal views (which don't, unless otherwise indicated). Hope that makes sense...hamiltonstone (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem with the tense is the many of the positions are implicitly conditional upon "if elected president", such as "Romney has proposed measures intended ..." and "Romney pledges to lead an effort ..." and "He plans to formally label China ..." and so forth. Well, he's not going to be president, and moreover, his importance in the American political scene is going to quickly go to zero. He's 65, lost a race that most in his party thought should have been won, has no political office to return to, has no power base or ideological constituency within his party, and has no presence in Washington. He's going to disappear faster than Michael Dukakis, who was perhaps the closest recent similar losing candidate.
The other problem is, what is the purpose of "Political positions" sections and subarticles? If you look at Category:Political positions of American politicians, virtually all of the entries are for politicians campaigning for office during the WP era. They are essentially voter guides, written during campaigns and intended to be read during campaigns. How much biographical significance do they have after the campaigns are over? It's interesting to note that the authors of FA articles about past political figures have almost always not included "Political positions" sections or subarticles in them ... not Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford or Calvin Coolidge or Garret Hobart or Grover Cleveland or a bunch of others. The only historical one that does with a summary section is Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan has a "See also" entry to one. To me that indicates that simply changing the tenses of this section is not necessarily the best course of action. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The difference with those other presidential candidates is that they are so much further removed from us in time. They were candidates before the emergence of Wikipedia and widely-accessible digital information. For candidates campaigning today (or within the past 5-10 years or so), it is a trivial matter to collect via the internet in just a matter of minutes information on the candidates' political positions. Researching candidates from earlier periods is more involved, often necessitating a physical trip to a library to review archival material that is not readily accessible online to the casual researcher and the review of books that also are not necessarily available online. Just as important, if not more so, it's also much too soon for books based on high-quality research to have been published that cover our contemporaries (like the positions taken by Romney or Gingrich or Huckabee), AND their times, in the way that past politicians and their times have been covered. As for the issue of tenses, why could the article not simply say, "Romney proposed measures intended ..." and "Romney pledged to lead an effort ..." and "He planned to formally label China ..."? Dezastru (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made the tense changes, along the lines you propose. In separate edits, I've also removed the two things I mentioned at the beginning as things I think no longer need to be here and can be left to the daughter article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 November 2012

At the bottom of the section for the 2012 presidential campaign, the sentence "In the end, Romney won 206 electoral college votes to Obama's 303, losing all but one of the battleground states." should be corrected with the updated result for Florida (Obama won 332 electoral votes). [2] Booboobane (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Already done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Standard political position topics:

I see Michael Huckabee's article, and there is a sub-section labeled as controversies. Those controversies were about him saying Obama is from Kenya, and many more criticised statements. They were all put there in a very unbiased, and correct manner. I think we should also put a political controversies section on Barack Obama's page. He has before made very controversial statements. For example, when he said, "You didn't build that." Referring to the small business owners. Mitt Romney's 47% video was very controversial. I am trying to be as moderate as possible. So if we could just in a very unbiased, and polite manner, put a political controversies section on all politician's pages, so we can be fair. Thanks, I would like feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole levine 24 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, experience has shown that separate "Controversies" sections are a poor practice that leads to junk accumulation, and they are considered a violation of WP:NPOV and multiple other guidelines. In particular, back in 2007 a special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' biographical articles of such treatment — see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 1#Status of "controversies" pages for the history of that effort — and the same thing was done for all of the 2012 contenders. The Huckabee subsections are something that crept in after his 2008 campaign and should be undone (that article has terrible structural problems overall - for example, his 11-year governorship only gets two paragraphs, while minor trifles like a staged caller incident get more). In high-quality, GA/FA-level biographies, controversial matters should be discussed in chronology with everything else, where the proper context and weighting and balance and understanding can be maintained. In this article, for example, the 47% remark is included in the 2012 presidential campaign section, where it belongs. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia and documentation of Cranbrook pranks

Earlier this year there was a spirited debate about allowing a page on Wikipedia that documented what is referred to in this article as only "pranks". The initial page was called Cranbrook Incident and later moved to Mitt Romney Cranbrook Incident. For obvious political reasons many didn't want any negative information to appear about their favorite candidate on Wikipedia. Therefore, the only compromise reached was just to allow this page to say there were pranks and that he apologized for them. There is a problem if we leave it like this. The fact is Romney has now lost the election and researchers will look for reasons many years to come. One factor they will see is Romney called a bully, and there is no hiding the fact that there are now thousands of web pages that describe the Cranbrook Incident. There is no article here on Wikipedia that allows documentation of this incident. Is it not a key purpose of Wikipedia to report historical truth? Spinsters have done a good job trying to purge any record of this page off Wikipedia. Even the debate has been purged. I have a version of the page in my sandbox still. Who now agrees that a historical truth that harmed a candidates votes for office is worth its own page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pbmaise/sandbox Pbmaise (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The compromise that was eventually reached was to put the Cranbrook incident details into a Note, which is tied to the main text that you refer to. It's currently Note #1, see here. And that has a regular footnote to the Washington Post story that revealed the incident, currently footnote #18, see here. Now maybe you would rather it was in the main text than in a Note, but that's the compromise that was reached between editors who wanted that and editors who didn't think it should be in at all. Also note that the debate over it has not been purged, but rather moved to the Talk archives. It's still there, in fact it spans four or five of those archive pages. Do a "Search archives" (see button near the top of this page) for "Cranbrook incident" and you'll see what I mean. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I still object to the use of the term "prank" in this instance on the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The text in the Note itself does not call it a prank per se. It lists the Cranbrook-era pranks. Then it says, "In 2012, five former classmates described a 1965 episode ..." Then it gives Romney's response, which was in terms of the other pranks. In any case, the definition of this kind of compromise is that nobody's fully happy with what results, and that is certainly the case here. While you were prominent in the Archives 12, 13, and 15 discussions on this, you weren't part of the 16 and 18 discussions, with the latter having the 'minimalist proposal' that settled on this form. And the consensus in favor of that proposal was pretty strong. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Least influential person of 2012

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsoutofcontext/55360998-64/utah-trib-romney-attends.html.csp Finally Mitt wins something. Surely it's worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, the list was made in a humorous way, not really noteworthy for here. MavsFan28 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Mitt won a major party presidential nomination, which the large percentage of presidential wannabees never accomplish. The award for most inept and underperforming candidate in this cycle would definitely have to go to Rick Perry, not Mitt. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I also don't see this as being particularly relevant to Mitt's life overall.--174.93.165.157 (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 December 2012

Add Governor of Massachusetts to list of Positions in infobox 122.106.177.130 (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. It already says that he's Governor at the top of the box. RudolfRed (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Career box

I was reading over this article and I have a question: In the information box under Romney's picture, do the only things featured about his career have to be political? For instance, since he was the CEO/founder of Bain Capital, should that and its dates be included underneath "70th Governor of Massachusetts?" Just an inquiry that I had. Thanks! Blee395 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Blee395

They are included further down in the "Positions" entry of the infobox. Most articles don't seem to include business positions under the higher-up 'offices' of the infobox, although some do. Yet another WP inconsistency ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Post-Election

Perhaps a new section needs to be made for his post election life, he is now primarily residing in San Diego's La Jolla (Orlando Sentinel), and has rejoined the Marriott's Board of Directors (USA Today).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Section now exists, with the Marriott board rejoining. Too soon to call a primary residence, though, especially since winter is the time of year he probably avoids New Hampshire and Massaschusetts anyway. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

He has had an interview with FOX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.137.78 (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Politician

The article presently says this: "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and politician who served as the 70th Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007."

The word "politician" has just been inserted, though it was removed during the featured article process. The lead sentence of a featured article is particularly important. Here, the word "politician" is redundant given the statement that he was governor.

One reason to include the word would be for its connotations; per dictionary, a politician is, "2. One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering: 'Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but . . . they do not want them to become politicians in the process' (John F. Kennedy)." American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Or consider this dictionary definition: "2 ... b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons". Merriam Webster Dictionary 2011. But NPOV is not served that way.

Another pertinent featured article (Barack Obama) does not explicitly refer to him as a "politician" either.

To my knowledge, the subject does not self-identify as a politician ("America wants a leader not a politician"). Consensus can change, of course, but I'm not seeing much of a reason at this point (note that he's currently not occupying or seeking any political office).

While the word "politician" is itself not a huge deal, this article has a history of negative slanting, though certainly not slanting of the severity that one sometimes sees in other wikipedia articles. This stuff was largely repaired during the featured article process, and it would be nice to avoid backsliding (e.g. restoring prominent image of notorious acquantance of his father, restoring details about ancestors' controversial marriages, et cetera). Thx.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This should really be decided on a WP-wide basis rather than on an article-by-article basis. All that previous discussions of this on past Talk pages of this article have discovered is that WP is woefully inconsistent on this question. See Talk:Mitt Romney/GA2#Politician for perhaps the most detailed one. To update that investigation a bit, the best comparison points to this article now would be other failed major-party presidential nominees who were never president (e.g. not GHWB or Carter) and who did not seek or hold office after their presidential losses (e.g. not McCain or Kerry). Al Gore does not have "politician". Bob Dole does. Michael Dukakis does not. Walter Mondale does. Adlai Stevenson II does. Wendell Willkie does not. Alf Landon does. Al Smith does not. And so on ... again, woefully inconsistent. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, Fritz subbed for Wellstone.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Absence from presidential inauguration

Just wondering if we should mention Romney's absence from today's presidential inauguration. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it would be that uncommon. McCain wasn't at Obama's first one either, right? Whitestorm17 (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Mitt who? Seriously, and I'm not having a go at him, he's not part of that scene now. He lost. Probably won't stand again, although that's entirely up to him (and a few other people, I guess). Not an important matter. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Couldn't say for certain, but MSNBC and The Telegraph are reporting that he is the first losing candidate not to attend an inauguration since 1989. I also heard this mentioned by BBC News. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Romney had no reason to be there. All the losing candidates after 1989 had federal offices (McCain and Kerry were sitting US Senators, Gore was the outgoing VP, 1st Bush was the outgoing President, etc.). Romney has never had a federal office and had no reason to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.71.60 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
When you said all the losing candidates held a federal office do you mean that they held a federal office at some point or that they currently held a federal office at the time of the inauguration? If so I think you are incorrect. The loser of the 1996 election was Bob Dole. At the time of the inauguration(January 20th 1997) Bob Dole did NOT hold a federal office. Although I'm not sure if he attended the inauguration. --Jimv1983 (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Mitt Romney has no intention of being involved in the political scene or being a public figure at this point, so it isn't surprising. While George H. W. Bush was still a public figure (ie. the President) after his defeat, and Gore and Kerry were still politicians and public figures after theirs, Romney is not. Perhaps he wants to spend more time with his family (something he obviously couldn't do while campaigning) instead of traveling to DC for a few days? Toa Nidhiki05 00:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Nidhiki05. With no political office or base of support, Romney has zero role in American politics going forward, so it's not worth noting his absences from political events. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Should be included. That Romney "has no intention of being involved in the political scene" is noteworthy. TFD (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
All of the Bush's were absent and very few Republican leaders were present... so I don't think it is neccesary. Whitestorm17 (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
(ec)If there is a source stating that defeated candidates usually attend inaugurals but Romney didn't, then maybe it should be included. Without that, it does not belong in this biography. 72Dino (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
If it is since '89, that makes sense. That's the last time the losing candidate wasn't a federal officeholder. That Romney didn't go was entirely predictable and unremarkable. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
That is not true. Bob Dole lost in 1996. He left his office as Senator of Kansas in June of 1996 so on election day and inauguration day he did NOT hold a federal office.--Jimv1983 (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
ok guys, thanks for the feedback on this. Thought I'd ask rather than just adding something as the article is an FA, and it's always worth discussing potential new material. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Red category: articles with VIAF identifiers

The category "Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers" is red, which I think looks bad, especially in a featured article. It should either be made blue or changed for another category. I am not familiar with what this category is about, so it would be fine if somebody who understands this better than me would fix it. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any red either on the article page or this talk page. Maybe it was a transient mistake due to a template edit that has since been corrected. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
You are right. I saw it on the article page - and after that I saw similiar ones on other biography pages - but it´s gone now. Probably some kind of category that is normally hidden. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Post-election

"'It kills me' to not be in the White House and criticizing the President.". Isn't this a little opinionated? The source originally said "It kills me not to be there, not to be in the White House doing what needs to be done". Romney in now way implied he wanted to criticize the president if he won the presidency, which would make little to no sense anyways. [3] AloDurranium (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Milton Romney

I suggest adding a disambig to Milton "Mitt" Romney. 87.206.44.157 (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done - M0rphzone (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the lines on the head of the article.......

....should be moved to the body of the article.- Billybob2002 (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Which ones would you suggest? Hot Stop 03:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd also like to know what you think should be removed. Note that per WP:LEADLENGTH, for an article of this size, a lead section of four paragraphs is appropriate. And per WP:MOSINTRO, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." This lead does that; if a reader stops reading when they hit the table of contents and walks away, I think they'll still have a pretty good idea of who Mitt Romney is and what he has done. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Senate nominee

Mitt Romney was the nominee for Massachusetts' Class 1 Senate seat, not the Class 3 seat (Massachusetts doesn't have a Class 3 Senate seat). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.100.10 (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct you are. Now fixed. Thanks for the spot. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2013

0alx0 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC) {{nocontact}}

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. What edit are you asking for? RudolfRed (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Stanford

Romney matriculated at Stanford and attended for a non-trivial length of time. In the infobox alma mater sections, we have Barack Obama attending Occidental College, even though he transferred to Columbia College, Bill Clinton attending Oxford, although he departed for Yale, and Dick Cheney attending Yale, even though he flunked out and graduated from the University of Wisconsin. Similarly, Larry Ellison spent relatively little time at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Chicago, but it's noted in the infobox, just as Michael Dell is listed as having dropped out of the University of Texas at Austin. Also see Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs. In the absence of any compelling reason to exclude Romney's stint at Stanford, I'm including it.

Advocata (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Religion

I've noticed that Mr. Romney's, page gives his entire denomination under the religion tag but President Obama's page just says "Christian". Shouldn't the presidents page give his entire denomination too, or shouldn't the words LDS church be in brackets near the word Christian or vice versa; it gives the feeling that Mormons aren't Christian which doesn't make sense.We could also insert a "/" and then write chrisian next to it or write it like "Church of Latter Day Saints/Mormon (Christian)".

either President Obama's page is incomplete or Mr. Romney's page is incomplete. either way the problem needs fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.50.207 (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Those who call themselves Christian tend to have a big problem agreeing on who is a Christian and who isn't. Some say Mormons are. Some say they're not. There is no easy solution. I'd leave it as it is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Any problem is not with the Romney page but the Obama one. And any problem is not with Wikipedia but the reliable secondary sources, or absence thereof. Looking at other American biographies, particularly high-profile politicians, you can find a multitude of Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. Until 2008, Obama was a member of the United Church of Christ (in Chicago); since resigning that membership and subsequently moving to Washington, he is reported to attend interdenominational Christian services, primarily, IIRC, at the chapel at Camp David. Thus, the only reported religion is the more generic all-encompassing "Christian". Fat&Happy (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's what his article says now, so where's the problem you claim exists? HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree with the others that this page is not a problem. WP article infoboxes generally give the Christian denomination, thus Joe Biden and Paul Ryan say Roman Catholic, Bill Clinton says Baptist, and so forth, and thus it is appropriate for Mitt Romney to say LDS. Sometimes things aren't so clear, so for example John McCain says "Baptist congregant (brought up Episcopalian)" with a footnote explaining things. The Obama article deals another not-completely-clear situation by saying "Christian" with a really long footnote. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Election winner in first paragraph?

[moved here from my talk page]

Just a comment from a passer-by. Just trying to be helpful.

In reference to [3]. I agree with Cwobell in that the information about "lost to Barack Obama" should be kept, it keeps the historical context. It's also strange to mention the nomination, but not what happened with the nomination.

However, the "but" could sound to some people as "ha, ha, he lost". It could be rewritten so that:

  • the information "lost to Barack Obama" is preserved
  • it doesn't sound offensive to some people

Just using different words, or a different structure to the sentence. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What User:Cwobeel and User:Enric Naval seem to have missed in that diff is that the same information was there before (see lower left of the diff screen). So it's not a matter of being "factual" or the "historical context", it's simply a matter of presentation. Should the mention of losing to Obama be in the first paragraph, which along the lines of WP:MOSBEGIN has the role of identifying the subject of the article, or should it come later in the lead section, which per WP:MOSINTRO gives a concise narrative summary of the article. I believe the latter is more appropriate, since it is the culmination of the paragraph that describes his political career.
Out of curiosity I looked at what the articles for other only-presidential-nominee losers do, and as usual WP is gloriously inconsistent. The McCain article does not mention who he lost to in the first paragraph, the Kerry article does, Gore does not, Dole does by implication, Dukakis does, Mondale does not, McGovern does not, Humphrey does, Goldwater does not, Stevenson does.
But in this case, I think it's better the way it was before. With the change, we have to link "Democrat" very early on when it isn't pertinent to the subject, and the narrative of the last paragraph of the lead is just left hanging. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
If you refer to the current state (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitt_Romney&oldid=581577489) I agree it is better. Cwobeel (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Parts of this article are biased and populist.

Aren't phrases such as "profited handsomely" reserved for populist media? YuriyGulyayev (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No. This Google Books search shows that the phrase has been used many hundreds of times, by authors of all kinds of backgrounds and perspectives. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Obama/Romney

Why isn't there a section like the one you did on Romney on president Obama? I know more about the meat that I eat that I know about president Obama, what is he trying to hide?

Arizonaflyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.68.227.55 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is about improving the article titled Mitt Romney. If you want to suggest a change to the Barack Obama article (which already quite extensive), the correct place to put that suggestion is at Talk:Barack Obama, not Talk:Mitt Romney. Also you will need to be more specific on which of the many sections that appear on Mitt Romney you are want to parallel on Barack Obama, as it is not clear based on the wording above. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Swift exits" ref

The "Swift exits..." ref was recently marked as a dead link, but it could be fixed if the following...

<ref name="cnn031902">{{cite news | url=http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/03/19/massachusetts.governor/index.html | title=Swift exits, Romney joins Mass. governor's race | publisher=CNN | date= March 19, 2002 <!-- Retrieved October 30, 2006 --> }}{{dead link|date=January 2014}}</ref>

...was changed to read as...

<ref name="cnn031902">{{cite news |url= http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/03/19/massachusetts.governor/index.html |title= Swift exits, Romney joins Mass. governor's race |publisher= CNN |date= March 19, 2002 |accessdate= 2014-01-08 }}</ref>

...instead. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Request carried out, but edit semi-protected template has not expanded so there is no "answered = no" parameter to change to "answered = yes". - Arjayay (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Last paragraph of lead

The last paragraph of the lead says: "Romney won the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, thereby becoming the first Mormon to be a major party presidential nominee." The lead says nothing about the primary contest, except for this statement that he won. That's fine, but this sentence makes it sound like his main achievement in those primaries and the convention was in becoming the "first Mormon", as if that was the central focus of the primary campaign, or was the reason why his supporters voted for him in either the primaries or the general election. Yes, Romney's religion was a factor, but much less of one than his race (which apparently lost him many millions of votes if you compare the black vote for Clinton to the black vote for Obama). There were many more important factors than religion in both the 2012 GOP primaries and the 2012 general election. For example, negative advertising dramatically suppressed turnout of independents. Meanwhile, black turnout increased from 2008, and Obama won less than 40% of the white vote. Religion had relatively little to do with it.

Clinton got 83 percent of the black vote in 1992 and 84 percent in 1996. Gore got 90 percent in 2000; John Kerry got 88 percent in 2004. Obama captured 95 percent in 2008, and 2 million more black people voted in 2008 than in the previous election. In 2012, Obama won 93 percent of African-Americans (who turned out in greater numbers than in 2008), 71 percent of Hispanics, and 73 percent of Asians. Romney won about 59 percent of the white vote. This was a racially polarized election, and Romney's race was way more important than his religion. And both were relatively trivial compared to his personality and policies as portrayed by unusually negative advertising. The last paragraph of the lead over-emphasizes religion, and should at least mention Romney's race if his religion continues to be included there. Perhaps: "Romney won the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He was the first Mormon to be a major party presidential nominee, and was a white male candidate like all previous major party presidential nominees except his opponent."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a confusion here between two different and unrelated things (and my edit summary may have contributed to the confusion):
  1. The historic milestone of Romney being the first Mormon major party nominee
  2. The factors that determined the Obama-Romney general election
Regarding #1, it belongs in the lead, regardless of whether it was a significant factor in the election (and I agree that it wasn't). Similar religion and gender milestones are noted in the leads of Al Smith, John F. Kennedy, Geraldine Ferraro, Joe Lieberman <added after initial post>, Sarah Palin, and Joe Biden, and a marital status milestone is noted in the lead of James Buchanan (and used to be in Ronald Reagan, but seemingly not now), and in many cases those were not big factors in the outcome either. But they are historic firsts, and deserve prominent mention as such. Hillary's near-milestone in 2008 is mentioned in her lead, and if she wins the nomination in 2016, that will surely be mentioned. And if an openly gay person ever wins a major party nomination, that too will be mentioned. And so on. As for where in the Romney lead this should go, I am fine with moving it somewhere that makes it is clear it was not a major factor in the election (for instance, it could go in the first paragraph).
Regarding #2, I agree Obama's huge black turnout was a factor in the outcome, but so were many other things: the big Hispanic split (abetted by Romney's paeans to "self-deportation"), the continued gender gap, the 47% remark/'he doesn't care about people like us' factor, an inferior GOTV operation, and the protracted primary battle that temporarily ran him out of money and left him open to a barrage of negative ads. The article body could use some additional description of these factors, although I don't know if there's a consensus in the political science/observer community over which were the ones that really mattered (e.g. there was a paper out a few days ago that said GOTV didn't matter after all). In any case, I don't think the lead is the place for this; looking around, most of the leads of presidential losers don't try to, except for a few cases where the defeat was decisive and the reasons pretty clear (e.g. Hoover, Goldwater, McGovern).
So I'm against your revised text in the lead; I've read no analyses that suggest that Romney lost solely because he was white, and it's otherwise insignificant to state. I think you'd be better off incorporating a broader set of major factors and putting it in the article body, not the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, he was the first Mormon in several different positions, including Governor of Massachusetts. So, we could say something like: "Active in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Romney served during his business career as the bishop of his ward (head of his local congregation) and then stake president in his home area near Boston, and would later be the first Mormon in various positions." Then the sentence in the last paragraph can be removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
That's very vague, and I'm sure there have been plenty of Mormon governors, and not just in Utah (there are seven Mormons in the Senate right now). It's nominee for president that matters here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't it a milestone that Romney won 59% of the white vote but lost the election? No one else has come close to such a milestone, AFAIK.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
McCain won 55% of the white vote and lost the election. Dezastru (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Yup, and 59>55. Anyway, as discussed below, I've removed "white" from the lead as you and WTR requested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"... and was a white male candidate like all previous major party presidential nominees except his opponent." Really? Do you really think that including that line in the lede sets the right tone for the article? The lede of Romney's bio is not the place to get into this, and right before the article goes live on the Wikipedia Main Page is definitely not the time to make such a change. Significant or potentially controversial information should not appear in the lede if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. In addition, you are misinterpreting the significance of the line that has said, "Romney won the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, thereby becoming the first Mormon to be a major party presidential nominee." The line does not imply that his religious background was a central focus of his campaign or a major reason why supporters backed him. The line simply states that Romney made history by winning the nomination. No candidate before him had done what he did. History books 50 years from now will note that Romney was the first Mormon to become the presidential nominee of a major party (if Romney is remembered at all, other than for the 47% comments). A statement about his becoming the first Mormon presidential nominee of a major party belongs in the lede.
If you feel that the issue of racial demographics in the 2012 presidential election needs to be covered more thoroughly in Wikipedia than has thus far been the case, the place to do that would be in the 2012 presidential election articles, not in the lede of Romney's bio. Dezastru (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Per consensus above, I have removed his race from the lead. However, as WTR said, it's advisable not to confuse historical milestones with election factors, so I wrote: "He was the first Mormon to be a major party presidential nominee, though that factor was relatively insignificant in the election."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
No, we don't want that qualifier either. It's not necessary. Just state that he was the first. (What I said before was poorly worded - the lead doesn't have to say that religion wasn't a factor, it just has to avoid implying that it was. And I think that by using two sentences here, that is accomplished.) Moreover, Dezastru has a point, right now a few days before going on the main page is not the time to be reshaping a lead that has been stable for quite a while now. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Wasted Time R. Dezastru (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I was specifically invited at my talk page: "If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page." Having not messed much with this article since the election, I decided to just make a minor change to one paragraph, because that paragraph wrongly implied that his religion was a big factor in the election. You have my blessing to fix that however you think is best, given that we both agree it's a problem, but I would keep religion out of the first paragraph.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've taken out that qualifier. As it reads now compared to when this started, the last paragraph has three separate sentences, and I think there's little danger of the 'first Mormon' sentence being read as having either caused his nomination win or his general loss. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I conformed the March 12 blurb.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Romney style

Per Time magazine Romney dances Gangnam style--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

For a moment, I thought you were talking about the CollegeHumor parody video. I don't think either warrants mention in this article. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, Time magazine may have a biased view. ~ IMO, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations to the editors here

For the record, congratulations to the editors of this article. It is the featured article today. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

2012 Electoral Map Results

I've noticed in other articles about past Presidents and Presidential nominees that an image of the electoral results of the election they ran in usually appears. Perhaps it would be a good idea to include a small image of the Electoral College results of the 2012 election on the right side of Romney's 2012 campaign section?--50.134.58.242 (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added one, but rather than use the plain electoral college map File:ElectoralCollege2012.svg, I've followed the lead of the Bob Dole article and used the county-by-county, shaded-by-percentage map File:2012nationwidecountymapshadedbypercentagewon.svg, as I think that conveys demographics as well as geography. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Romney had an edge in all debates? Utter Nonsense

It is universally known that Obama won debates 2 and 3. In fact, Obama completely smashed Romney in debate 3. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought Candy Crowley won the second debate, but anyway the Wikipedia article does not say that Romney had an edge in all the debates. It says: "That initial debate overshadowed Obama's improved presentation in the last two debates later in October, and Romney maintained an edge in the debates overall." In other words, even if Obama did better than Romney in the last two debates, the first was so lopsided that the overall average favored Romney.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
"Romney maintained an edge in the debates overall", that doesn't necessarily imply that Romney won the debates or was better than Obama in debating, but maintained a sharp stance in the debates. That's basically the way I construe that line. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
It was meant to say what Anythingyouwant says, but obviously it wasn't clear enough. I've changed the wording to "... and Romney maintained a small advantage in the debates when seen as a whole." I also updated the url for the USA Today story that is the source, so that can be seen again. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone won those "debates", they were scripted and came from two people of similar right wing dispositions.--86.161.14.108 (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have a source for "scripted" please furnish it, else it may seem to be your own opinion which we can not use. Collect (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two major problems with the way it is currently worded (viz, "That initial debate overshadowed Obama's improved presentation in the last two debates later in October, and Romney maintained a small advantage in the debates when seen as a whole"). (1) It doesn't say that many viewers felt that Obama won the 2nd and 3rd debates. As it is written, the paragraph as a whole can be read as meaning that viewers, on average, felt that Romney decisively trounced Obama in the first debate and also prevailed in performances during the other two debates, although Obama's performance had improved in the other two compared to the first. (2) It's also misleading to just give USA Today's conclusion that Romney 'maintained a slight edge,' when the poll showed only a 2-point difference (46–44%) which lay within the poll's margin of error. Gallup, who actually conducted the very poll that USA Today refers to, put it this way: "Overall, Americans are evenly split on who did the better job in the three debates." (my emphasis)[4] Dezastru (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Most people would call 2% a "slight edge" -- what t=term would you use where the amount is 2%? The question is whther USAToday is a reliable source for what it published -- and I suggest that it is such. Collect (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The Gallup headline said "evenly split" but the actual text said "Americans essentially break even, with 46% saying Romney and 44% Obama"; to me that "essentially" qualifier amounts to the same thing as our "small advantage". Wasted Time R (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

non RS USA today source for "Romney maintained a small advantage in the debates when seen as a whole"

The sample size was only 1000. And the margin of error was twice as big as the 2% advantage given to Romney. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

USA Today is a reliable source and meets the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. A personal opinion of the statistical validity does not meet those requirements. Bahooka (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't make me waste my time to go the reliable sources noticeboard. This is a nonRS source. "Avoid undue weight when using single studies" - Wikipedia RS. During the election there were millions of polls conducted by everyone. You can't just cherry pick a poor one. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
USAToday is RS and remarkably RS for anything it reports. That you do not like it is pretty much not a part of any Wikipedia policy about sources. In some cases we report a difference of 0.3% in a poll with a 3% margin of error (see the coverage of the Florida 13th Congressional District special election). And the rhetorical "millions" gets pared down quite a bit in real life - there are only about five "major polling groups" for federal stuff. USAToday used one of them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source for the same point. Obama crashed in the first debate, and made up ground in the last two, so that his overall loss was "minimal".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A person may want to ask, "How many people watched the debates anyway? Turns out, about 67million." [5] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There's no question that USA Today is indeed a RS. But it is a fair point to raise whether this one poll is consistent with others asking the same question. But I think if you query political observers for whether the debates as a whole helped Romney, helped Obama, or had no effect, most will say they helped Romney (as borne out by the passage Anythingyouwant points to). The debates gave his campaign a momentum boost and got voters to give Romney a fresh look. So I think the essence of what the article is saying is correct. Of course the debates obviously didn't help Romney too much, since he lost the election. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It refers to the only major national poll taken on the specific topic as far as I can tell. So the requirement that it agree with non-existent polls is quite problematic indeed. Collect (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Simsek, Ayhan (October 30, 2012). "Turkey watching US elections closely". Deutsche Welle.
  2. ^ http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main
  3. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/03/us-usa-romney-idUSBRE9220DG20130303
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitt_Romney/Archive_23&oldid=1142771479"