This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article currently says that his wife is related somehow to a Princess in Sweden named Lilian. This assertion was previously made in the article about Ann Romney, but was removed after discussion.[1] And if it shouldn't be in the article about Ann Romney, I don't see why it should be in this article either, so I'll remove it.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Don`t tuch important information! "Princess in Sweden named Lilian", common ! You idiot ! HRH Princess Lilian of Sweden ( b 1915)!
Lilian is a Ann`s distant relative.
His relation to a painter
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following was recently inserted into the article:
Mitt Romney is a kinsman of George Romney (1734- 1802), a genius English portrait painter.123456
Ths kind of stuff should go elsewhere at Wikipedia, if at all. For example, there's an article on the Pratt–Romney family where it might be discussed. Mitt Romney is related to all kinds of people, but this article is about him, and not about them. For instance, he's related to Rebecca Nurse, and to Romnichals, and to Anne Hutchinson, et cetera, et cetera. Plus he's related to all the people who are related to those people (e.g. Vincent Price, Leslie Southwick, et cetera, et cetera). But all of that is very tangential to this article.
Additionally, accumulating a lot of footnotes to support a statement does not necessarily justify inclusion of that statement in a Wikipedia article. Five of the footnotes here are search results from familysearch.org, and this seems an awful lot like synthesis and original research, which are not allowed at Wikipedia; the search results may be accurate, but they're strung together to prove a point. And the sixth footnote is a book that doesn't say anything about Mitt Romney. These footnotes do not show any reliable source implying that the relation to the English painter is notable.
I hope you understand that there are tons and tons of facts about Mitt Romney, and we have to use some method to pick out the main ones for inclusion in this article. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Mitt Romney`s and George Romeny`s ( an genius artist) common ancestor were George Rumley ( Romney) 1642-1738. http://www.wargs.com/political/romney.html
Of course as american you don`t understood nothing about world ! George Romney`s case explaine artistic nature of Mitt. Why he is so talented ? Because of Romney family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doom11 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Mitt's enthusiastically supporting (and, so, his metaphorically "marching with") his dad
Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Despite its 2007 NYT citation, I'm posting
He has been involved in politics from an early age, having joined(proudly supported) his father ('s participation) in civil rights marches.[1]
---here to the talk page (with my blue-penciled, off-hand emendations).
The following is sourced somewhere, I'm sure, in (either this article's?--or the campaign one's) talkpage archives:
It is romantic to think Mitt "marched" with his dad, who did King as the Romney campaign reported, but what is suppported in the historical record is that what Mitt actually did as a youth was proudly LEARN of his dad's civil rights marching. The New York Times correctly reported a statement Mitt made years before, prior entering politics, where in one interview Mitt misspoke and said he'd "marched" with his dad, was that in his youth he'd been an enthusiastic supporter of civil rights "alongside" his father. --Justmeherenow (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what it means that he "proudly supported" something as a kid. Either he marched with him (and it now appears that he didn't) or he didn't march. Lot's of people watched others march for civil rights. That doesn't mean it belongs in their biographical entries. I say delete the whole thing.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we have any reliable source that contradicts the NYT?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple of issues here. First, it seems a stretch to say that joining a civil rights march as a kid (assuming for the sake of argument that he did) means that he was "involved with politics at an early age." There's no indication in the NYT's brief reference when or where these marches took place, or what they were about. Second, I have serious doubts about the NYT claim. The quote from the article is "Mitt Romney had walked in civil rights marches with his father and said he shared his concern for racial equality. But neither publicly questioned the church’s teachings." Again, there are no details. The article was published on Nov 15, 2007. Shortly afterwards, it was shown that Romney's claims that he saw his dad march with Martin Luther King were false (his Dad didn't march with MLK and Romney was isolated on his mission in France. I would argue that we remove this claim altogether unless some other more specific corroboration can be provided.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking into it a little more, Romney had previously claimed that "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit." This has been proven false. Given this history of Mitt Romney misremembering what he did, we should definitely not include this statement. Furthermore, by ignoring the well-publicized matter of his misstatements on the MLK marches, it gives the reader a false impression of that controversy.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur, by ignoring the matter on the MLK marches; it does give readers a false impression the whole thing. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Romney's dad marched (although not directly in the company of Dr. King, apparently) in June 1963 when Mitt was in high school, so the question remains whether Mitt "joined" his father literally or figuratively. — Justmeherenow( ) 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Read this. Given Mitt Romney's mis-remembered visions of seeing his father march with MLK, and repeatedly stating during the campaign that he "saw" them march together, there is really no reliable record of how his father's activities might have impacted a young Mitt. There seems to be no reliable record indicating that Mitt was physically present with his father at the 1963 march in Detroit. If you've found something different, please provide it. This whole episode (the statements and the clarifications) certainly deserves a few sentences in the biography.Notmyrealname (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I was clarifying the question not alleging to possess an answer. You're right, Notmyrealname, Mitt's youthful pride in his dad's progressive stand on Civil Rights, in time embroidered into picturesque misrememberings of "I-was-there-witnessing-this!," could find a place in his Wikibio, if handled right. — Justmeherenow( ) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent)This issue is covered extensively in the sub-article on his presidential cmapaign.[2] Romney's position is that his father "figuratively" marched with MLK. That's been Romney's position since 2007. Plus, the NYT reported in November 2007 that Mitt had marched at some point with his father. I don't know of any evidence that the NYT report is erroneous.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Romney's $100 laptop photo
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
There is currently one photo of Romney in the section relating to his governorship. It is him posing with a $100 laptop. The caption reads "Governor Mitt Romney checked out the prototype of a one hundred dollar laptop in September of 2005, after filing education reform legislation." According to news reports, he proposed spending $58 million on these laptops in an education bill. The idea never went anywhere. Neither the caption nor any accompanying text explain this. A casual reader will likely (falsely) assume that Romney had something substantial to do with the computer project. If this image belongs anywhere, it would be in his governorship page, where it could be described with more complete context (although I don't think it merits even that). If a photo is to appear on this section, it should be related to something more substantial that Romney did in fact do while governor. I would suggest him signing the health care bill, for example. A photo of something that he put in a budget but that was never approved does not belong on this biography page.Notmyrealname (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Put it on the Governorship page, with citations to failed legislative effort. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The photo looks okay in the present article. The caption has been expanded: "Governor Mitt Romney poses with a prototype of a one hundred dollar laptop in September of 2005, after filing a proposal to give every public middle and high school student in Massachusetts one of the machines. The legislation did not pass." So, the photo can be left as-is (at least until better photos are proposed).Ferrylodge (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Mexican-American
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
George was born to American parents in Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.156.137 (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
While I don't want to start this discussion, we cannot allow "he is not christian" kinds of comments to pass by without disclaimer. Romney has served as clergy for most of his life in the US' fourth largest religion, a religion which most consider Christian. There are competing churches who say otherwise, but those are almost without exception the same churches that say Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Christian. It is appropriate to mention such in the article, as most analysts consider his Mormonism the overwhelming reason he is not now the presumptive nominee, but that is not the topic of this section of the Talk Page, and unsourced throwaway insults by unregistered trolls is not the way to grow this article in keeping with Wikipedia standards.--Mrcolj (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree (with the Mexican thing, not the dark-side thing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.145.112 (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're born in the US, that makes you a US citizen. Romney's father was not born on a military base, or serving as an ambassador--they had moved to Mexico some 20 years before he was born. Whatever his skin color or whatever country he felt like he was culturally a part of, he was still by definition a Mexican. People protested George's running for President because he wasn't born in the U.S. Mitt Romney is half Mexican, there's no question. --Mrcolj (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
George Romney was born a US citizen. Bytebear (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but does his citizenship answer the question? I mean, every "African American" I know has two parents who are US citizens. And almost every "Asian American" I know is the same. Romney was not "temporarily" in Mexico, his family had permanently escaped to Mexico when the US (again) declared war on his ethnicity. I agree that people I've met from "the Mormon Colonies" act pretty American, and their skin is often pretty white, but what do either of those factors mean to this discussion? Romney was simply born in Mexico, and so were his parents, and it seems that may be worth mentioning. --Mrcolj (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
African-Americans and Asian-Americans have heritage from those continents. George Romeny's parents went to Mexico from America as US citizens. They did not come to the US from Mexico as natives. That makes a big difference. They always had American citizenship, and if anything, he is a European-American as that is his heritage. Bytebear (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is this page being automatically archived?
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This is being done by a bot. However, the bot's page says that consensus should be reached first before the bot is activated for the page. I would prefer that we don't archive this page automatically, as we often come back to the same contentious issues.Notmyrealname (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I removed the bot from this page. Please discuss on this talk page before reactivating the bot.Notmyrealname (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
man why did you left campaign? you couldve been a good candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.5.116 (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The auto archiving seems to be back ... sometimes, see this action but nothing since. I'm lukewarm on auto archiving at best, so I'm okay with the current state of affairs. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Record Removed
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why was Mitt Romney’s arrest record removed, and a message was recieved stating posting the record was vandalizing his site and to go play in a sand box?
It appears bias to remove important information on arrests of a candidate, doesn’t seem like sand box play at all.
Subject ROMNEY has been arrested on two occasions, in Massachusetts and Michigan, and, per Utah law enforcement, been verbally abusive with sheriff's deputy there. Known associates are currently under investigation for impersonating a police officer and fraud and money laundering
WAYLAND, MASS. (1981) -- ARREST- DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
In June 1981, ROMNEY attempted to launch family motorboat at Cochituate State Park despite park ranger advising that he was prohibited from doing so because his boat did not display proper registration. ROMNEY was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. ROMNEY handcuffed and transported in bathing suit to Natick police station, where released on own recognizance.5 Disposition: Charges were dropped when ROMNEY threatened to sue the state for false arrest; case dismissed at Natick District Court in February 1982. ROMNEY successfully petitioned that the files be sealed.6
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICH. (c. 1965) -- ARREST- CHARGE NOT KNOWN.
ROMNEY was arrested along with future wife Ann Davies for actions in connection with practical joke at Cranbrook Academy. Reportedly ROMNEY and several friends "bought huge blocks of ice from the local gas station, laid towels over them, and went sliding down the slopes of a nearby golf course."7
HUNTSVILLE, UTAH (2002) -- USE OF PROFANITY WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
On February 10, 2002, while overseeing 2002 Winter Olympics, ROMNEY became extremely angry upon encountering a traffic jam at a venue and proceeded to berate two persons authorized to direct traffic there, including with obscenity laced tirades, according to a police captain at the scene and a volunteer targeted by ROMNEY. The traffic volunteer Shaun Knopp stated that ROMNEY "asked me who the f___ I was and what the f___ I was doing. We got the Olympics going on we don't need this s___ down here."8 Weber County Sheriff's Office Capt. Terry Shaw, commander of the Snowbasin venue, stated that ROMNEY twice used the F-word while also berating one of his officers, Deputy Kodi Taggart. Capt. Shaw stated that ROMNEY "was abusive" to his officer and advised, unsuccessfully, that "he needs to apologize."9 ROMNEY denied part of the allegation, insisting he hadn't used the F-word since high school -- but admitted he used a word he described as "H-E-double hockey sticks." Disposition: The Utah Department of Safety advised it had decided against initiating a "profanity probe."10 source: Romneyfacts.com documentation of source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.241.50 (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Since Romneyfacts.com is by its own description "Paid for and authorized by the Massachusetts Democratic Party", it doesn't exactly qualify as a WP:RS. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Romney is opposed to eating chicken skin
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
During the campaign, he ripped off chicken skin from fried chicken and threw it aside. Huckabee said that a Southerner would never do that because that's the best part. I can't think of an encyclopedic way to include this so I'll leave it up to you. The incident is reliably sourced. Oprahwasontv (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Let's see what we can do. --Floridianed (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe this would classify as useless trivia... I can't think of a reason why this minor factoid would be included in Mitt Romney's bio. --Bobblehead(rants) 20:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Oprahwasontv, you are free to start Poultrypedia, in which this tale of Romney and Huckabee might become its first featured article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Romney does not own four homes. He owns two homes. One is in La Jolla California and is the primary residence of one of his five sons. The other is in New Hampshire. He did once own a home in a Massachusetts and Utah as well but he no longer owns them.
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
2002 Olympics
In an August 13, 2007 U.S. News & World Report Opinion piece Bonnie Erbe reports:
The Salt Lake Tribune has evidence that Romney has produced a Gore-like gaffe by taking claim for the success for turning around the Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics. ...Romney made a calculated gamble to redeem himself in politics (after losing a Massachusetts Senate race to incumbent Ted Kennedy) by turning around the Salt Lake games, whose organizing committee had embarrassed itself by lavishing gifts on international Olympics executives to get the games. …Romney has since staked his presidential bid on "leadership" abilities proven in that turnaround effort.
But the Tribune reports that the former publisher of that paper, John W. "Jack" Gallivan, says Romney had little to do with erasing a $379 million operating deficit, or organizing the 23,000 volunteers for the event, or galvanizing the supposedly dispirited community, which Romney now claims credit for doing in fundraising letters. The paper reports in an op-ed piece: "Gallivan was a pioneer of Salt Lake City's Olympics efforts, traveling to Rome with other business leaders bearing the state's first bid in 1966. He watched Utah's Olympics aspirations grow over the years and his son, Mickey, volunteered to do communications work for the bid that ultimately landed the Winter Games for Utah. Mickey Gallivan says the television contracts, which formed the revenue base, had already been negotiated before Romney took over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.137.80 (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Romney recently stated he would not run for President again regardless of the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election. This should be included in the above related section of the as it is obviously relevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.250.230 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
No source given. And anyway, politicians' statements that they won't run for president in the future should not be taken at face value. We don't know if he will or won't run in 2012, but right now the "invisible primary" is going on and Romney is doing well. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Health Reform and Election Commission Residency Decision Facts Tweak Needed
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On this page where it says: "The Massachusetts Democratic Party filed a complaint with the Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission, which eventually ruled that Romney was eligible to run for office. " it should include a notation about the composition of the Commission. A suggested change is "The Massachusetts Democratic Party filed a complaint with the Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission, which eventually ruled that Romney was eligible to run for office. The commission was staffed by two Republicans and one Democrat and divided two to one along party lines over the issue".
In addition, on this page where it says: "On April 12, 2006, Romney signed the Massachusetts health reform law which requires nearly all Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance coverage or face the loss of their personal income tax exemption." it fails to note one other very key provision of the legislation. A suggested change is "On April 12, 2006, Romney signed the Massachusetts health reform law which requires nearly all Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance coverage or face the loss of their personal income tax exemption. The legislation fines individuals who do not have approved employer coverage or who do not purchase a state approved health insurance policy"
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
looks better than the president —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.154.168.184 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Campaign for United States Senate, 1994
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
In the section titled “Campaign for United States Senate, 1994”, I think these important facts should be included.
First of all, I don't think the part that says “interviews with its union workers who had been fired” is particularly accurate, since in fact they were on strike at the time.
I think it should be noted that there were 41 layoffs, but within two years they had hired 122 new employees, about three times the layoffs. This was attributed to better management.
“Management has shed 41 of 265 blue-collar jobs “
“Mr. Hanson says the changes have worked at other Ampad plants since Mr. Romney and his partners bought the company from the Mead Corporation two years ago, and since then Ampad's profits from the other three factories have grown and employment, too, from 728 jobs to 850. "People of entrepreneurial bent took it over and made it successful," he said.”
Also the pay cuts weren't as large as some have envisioned. They were less than one dollar an hour, maybe as low as 6 cents an hour.
“The extent of the pay cuts is a much disputed issue. Mr. Hanson says the average worker earns $10.50 an hour -- 6 cents less than at the time of the takeover. But the union contends that workers lost 97 cents an hour.”
I think that the section in question could use some minor tweaks, but that it's probably okay for now. If you want to add something, by all means post a proposed edit to the talk page and see if a consensus can be reached. I'm just about through trying to edit pages on even semi-controversial topic/people, since getting any sort of change through the system is akin to plucking out ones entire beard with a pair of tweasers -- it's slow, painful, and will probably have to be repeated in two weeks time. Jjc16 (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This is the part I'm suggesting changes to:
After Romney touted his business credentials and his record at creating jobs within his company, Kennedy ran campaign ads showing an Indiana company bought out by Romney's firm, Bain Capital, and interviews with its union workers who had been fired and criticized Romney for the loss of their jobs, one saying, "I don’t think Romney is creating jobs because he took every one of them away."[31] Romney claimed that 10,000 jobs were created because of his work at Bain, but private detectives hired by Kennedy found a factory bought by Bain Capital that had suffered a 350-worker strike after Bain had cut worker pay and benefits.[32]
I don't think the 350 worker number is accurate, it seems to be based solely on a Huffington Post article , which doesn't even use that number as a number of workers who went on strike. Besides that, it conflicts with this number from the New York Times “Management has shed 41 of 265 blue-collar jobs”.
Here's my suggested change with links. It would provide more information, and would be more accurate. It also sites an informative NYT article, and video that has part of the actual Romney ad. I would have liked to comment on the effects of the ad, but didn't because I think there are a variety of opinions. I think it's all verified facts.
Romney ran ads touting his business credentials and claiming that he had helped to create more than 10,000 jobs[31]. In response, Kennedy sent a film crew to Marion, Indiana to interview union workers who were either on strike or had been laid off from an Ampad plant owned by Romney's firm, Bain Capital. Bain had bought the companies assets, and hired most of the workers back, but at reduced wages. Kennedy flooded the airwaves with 30 second ads of these workers who made critical statements of Romney, blaming him for job and wage losses. Romney didn't deny cuts had been made, in fact, 41 of 265 blue-collar jobs were cut and wages were cut 6 cents an hour according to management, or 97 cents an hour according to the union. Romney claimed that they had done those things so the company could survive and grow. He also claimed that the number of jobs created takes account of a few losses at companies he's had to reorganize. Within two years Ampad actually did grow from 728 jobs to 850, which the chairman of Ampad attributed to better management.[32]
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I think this section needs some work
Link #122 needs to be updated-it's dead
Typo: "he viewed as posing a threat to Policex." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preauxx (talk • contribs) 20:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"Romney increasingly expressed views in line with traditional conservatives on social issues.[123][124]"
This seems like a value judgment, and should be backed up with some facts, quotes, or examples that support it.
Romney was filmed participating in a Pro-Choice Planned Parenthood fundraiser in 1994 in conjunction with a $150 family contribution
"Photographed" would be more accurate than "filmed", and "attending" would be more accurate than "participating"
Romney has been a strong supporter of gun control legislation and enforcement
This is a value judgment, and there's evidence that claims otherwise.
"During Romney’s term he signed several pieces of firearms regulation. A look at that regulation does not reveal an anti-gun Romney. Those bills are characterized as “net gains” for gun owners in a state where opinioned is weighed against them.
During his tenure, Gov. Romney was credited with several improvements to state laws, including protections for shooting clubs, restoration of the Inland Fish and Game Fund, and requirements that all new hunters pass a hunter safety course. He is also credited with relaxing manufacturing testing for some models of pistols.
In 2004, Gov. Romney signed a firearms reform bill that made permanent the ban on assault weapons as well as clarified and insured other rights and responsibilities for gun owners. It was a hard-fought compromise between interest groups on both sides of the issue. The NRA Gun Owners’ Action League, law enforcement, and Massachusetts gun owners endorsed the bill."
Romney has also supported some legislation that was endorsed by the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners' Action League.
I think this should be more specific, much of the rest of this portion has specifics, but there are none here.
Romney's lawn care company
This should be rephrased, it implies possession, and since he didn't own or run the lawncare company I think this could be phrased better.
Romney had them fired after the fact was revealed to him during his presidential campaign.
Who is "them in this sentence? Is it the workers or the company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.15.86 (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
First he had the landscaping company replace anyone who was here working illeglly on it's payroll then when the landscaping company turned out to have replaced them with another group of illegals he switched landscaping companies.RichardBond (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Abridged sections
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I drastically abridged the sections on Romney's 1994 and 2002 campaigns, as they were each much longer than the main articles! I moved the original text to each main article to fill them out. YLee (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The abridgment went a bit too far, and I've restored some of the material removed and added a little new material. A section in an article has to have proper weighting relative to the other sections, regardless of whether there is a long, short, or nonexistent subarticle underneath them. These two campaigns are both major events in Romney's biography and need to be treated as such. If the subarticles are too short, then the proper course is to expand them (I've done some expansion of United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 1994, although there's plenty more that could be done). Wasted Time R (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Marion G. Romney
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Charge 1) Unverifiable. Wrong. I can find a source, and rather easily at that. I shall find one but in the meantime you could put 'citation needed'.
Charge 2) Tangential. Wrong. If a presidential candidate was the nephew of the Pope would that be tangent? Unlike other LDS politicians, Mitt Romney has direct and personal ties to the central leadership of the LDS church. Manticore55 (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for providing sources, and I would agree with you now about its relevance in this article except that this source that you provided says that Mitt is not a nephew of Marion Romney but merely a second cousin—a relationship that isn't noteworthy and does not merit inclusion here. —Eustresstalk 11:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Romney tie to Mexico
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
For a period of more than twenty five years Mitt Romneys immediate ancestors his paternal grandparents and great grandparents lived in Mexico. This is where his father was born. Due to large families and intermarrige much of the American descended Mormon community in the Paquime district is related to Mitt. There are dozens of people in it who are even surnamed Romney. Despite this he seems to have a tremendous blind spot regarding getting to know them or the area. I would not classify him as Mexican or Mexican American and do not fault his not doing so but do feel his branch is missing the opportunity to visit and associate with an area which is scenic and culturally attractive and where he and his father are held in high regard. Promoting job development there could also serve as an example supporting his position against the alternative of internal development, amnesty.RichardBond (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Do you have something to contribute to the article? Bytebear (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
LOL it sure does not take long for people to get pompous about other peoples posting. I spoke with him about it face to face yesterday. Nice art work on your user page. The local temple in Chihuahua could use the visitors.RichardBond (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Mitt's father left Mexico in 1912. That's a long time ago. It's not surprising if Mitt doesn't feel any strong ties to that country. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between primary identification with the area which would be a stretch and sentimental curiousity which is something I would expect. The Mexican Cultural Istitute actually had a show on the art of the district held in Washington D.C. they were invited to without anyone going even though they were in town. Obamas ties to his ancestors village in Ireland are more remote yet he visited there. RichardBond (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
This still seems pretty tenuous. The majority of Americans have never visited the countries of their ancestors from 100 years ago. If you have a strong source to back up all this, then maybe it qualifies for inclusion in Public image of Mitt Romney, but I can't see it belonging here. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As a Canadian (left wing at that), please, come back any time. Anyone who doesn't keep their seat in an upright position upon takeoff isn't welcome in Canada, thanks for calling him on that shit. -random Canuck from Toronto. (65.95.236.137 (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC))
I've relegated most of the Sky Blu altercation description to a note ... which is being generous. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
2010 CPAC
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Trouble is, the CPAC Straw Poll isn't a good predictor of anything. Consider the 2007 one: Mitt Romney 21%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Sam Brownback 15%, Newt Gingrich 14%, John McCain 12%. That didn't work out too well, did it? On the other hand, people do seem to pay some attention to the CPAC Straw Poll, I guess because it's one of the few that's done every year. So I'm not sure how to treat it. This article currently includes the 2009 result, but not any of the other ones. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Error on main page
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Now corrected. Thanks for the spot. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Romney on Abortion
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I'm personally confused by this passage here:
"In the past, Romney expressed support for the pro-choice position. Romney maintains that he has always followed his Church teachings and has been personally pro-life. Romney however acknowledges that his prior views were flawed, and now considers himself pro-life."
How could he both maintain that he has always followed Church teachings and yet recognize that his prior views were flawed? Doesn't that seem to say that he used to be pro-choice, but that he's always been pro-life? I may be misreading here, so I don't want to WP:BOLD. Also, I think "acknowledges that his prior views were flawed" comes off as violating WP:NPOV, as it implies that one of these positions is correct, and that Romney figured out that it's the pro-life position. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
When he ran for US Senate in liberal-leaning Massachusetts in 1994, Romney said abortion should be "safe and legal."...
During the 2002 campaign for governor, most major abortion rights groups endorsed his Democratic opponent, Shannon O'Brien, because they said she would be a champion of their cause, even though Romney offered support for abortion rights. He picked up the backing of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition.
I'm sorry but I'm still having difficulty with this. I don't see where he has said that his prior views were flawed. I get that Romney's (as with many others') views are a little too complex for the pro-choice/pro-life dichotomy, but I don't see much evidence in these links to support the passage. And there's still the neutrality issue. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Having now checked the citations to the sentence, the word "flawed" is not in the citations referenced (and those cites are of poor quality as well). The claim is thus subject to severe editing as an unsupported claim. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok I've made some changes to not only that aspect of the section but also a few other ones. I thought the previous wording was very convoluted and contradictory. The Fwanksta (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
"Increased fees"?
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Is there a reason why Romney's efforts to balance the state's budget are spoken of in terms of increasing "fees," rather then "taxes"? Is there a legitimate case to be made that what he raised was something other than taxes? If not, it sounds very much like the writer is trying to avoid mentioning that Romney broke his party's 11th commandment--"thou shalt raise no taxes." I.e., special pleading which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
75.18.200.173 (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Nancy R.
Fees and taxes are two separate things. Fees place the cost of government services on those people who are using those services (e.g. court filings, professional regulations, marriage licenses, firearms licenses, and so forth), while taxes generally spread the cost of government services across the entire population (e.g. a sales tax or an income tax), not just those using the services. There are legitimate arguments for and against both methods of raising revenue, but it's important to be precise about which Romney was raising and which he wasn't. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It is also the case that the Romney gubernatorial administration sought to increase the revenue of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, while also claiming to not raise taxes. Many of these fees reach to every adult in the Commonwealth. The reader may decide for herself if the Romney effort to avoid raising taxes is significant or not. Yellowdesk (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Some expansions
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I've expanded the lead section, which at one short paragraph was woefully short for an article of this length and visibility and out of conformance with WP:LEAD. Other suggestions for what should be in the lead are welcome.
I've also started reworking parts of the early life section. Mitt watched his father become CEO, governor, failed presidential candidate, and cabinet secretary; it wasn't all in the past and it had a definite effect on Mitt's outlook. There's also more that can be said about Mitt's own activities at these stages. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I neglected to mention at the time that I also greatly expanded the business career section. This is the longest and most important period in Romney's life (in terms of it leading to his Olympics involvement and political career, and forming his approach to things), and deserved more substantial treatment accordingly. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Presidential campaign section rewritten
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've completely rewritten the presidential campaign section. What was there had nothing on 2007, had too much on 2008 after his campaign ended, and had as-it-happened writing and sources for the primaries themselves. The new material is more analytical and relies on book sources that give better perspective on the campaign overall. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
editsemiprotected
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
{{editsemiprotected}}
A portion of Mitt Romney's positions under "Crime and Punishment" is disingenuous and requires clarity. The present text reads:
===Crime and punishment===
Romney supports the death penalty and sentencing under the three strikes law.[185][186][187] Romney opposes the use of torture;[180] however, he supports the limited use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" to stop an imminent wide-scale terrorist attack.[188] Romney supports mandatory increases in sentencing for repeat drunk drivers and has supported a federal effort to curtail the drug trade in Columbia.[159]
I propose this be amended to the following:
===Crime and punishment===
Romney supports the death penalty and sentencing under the three strikes law.[185][186][187] Romney opposes the use of torture[180] except to stop an imminent wide-scale terrorist attack.[188] Romney supports mandatory increases in sentencing for repeat drunk drivers and has supported a federal effort to curtail the drug trade in Columbia.[159]
I offer these reasons:
The term "enhanced interrogation technique" is inaccurate in this context, and misrepresents Romney's actual position, especially in light of the source cited for this paragraph (footnote 180), in which the accompanying video disclosing Romney's position makes no mention of his opposition to torture and makes no reference to "enhanced interrogation techniques". Furthermore, footnote [188] is defunct and does not link to a page describing Romney's position.
I hold that my proposed edit is accurate in the context of Romney's stated opinion in the video footage cited in [180]. At time mark 50:30 Romney says:
"You probably heard what Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the so-called 'mastermind' of the 9/11 tragedy said when he was captured. He turned to his captors and said 'I'll see you in New York with my lawyers.' Well that's not what happened. Instead he saw GIs and CIA interrogators in Guantanamo, just like it ought to be."
It is now known that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was subjected to the procedure known as waterboarding on over 100 occasions. This method of forcing a captive to talk is unambiguously torture. Romney's own words confirm that he believes this action is just, and therefor to state that Romney supports the torture of terrorists under specific condition is reasonable and precise.
As to the validity of my assertion that waterboarding is torture, I offer these evidences which sustain the accuracy of this wording:
With these testimonials, and a common sense understanding of the English language, it should be clear that waterboarding is accurately categorized as torture under the letter and spirit of our own US law. I cite US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html) which states:
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
Although there has been a good deal of controversy about whether certain phrases in this law may be construed to permit waterboarding, I invite the editors to consider the footage of Hitchens when he is told to drop from his hands metal bars he is holding as a signal to stop the procedure if he feels he is being subjected to "unbearable stress". I believe it is accurate to presume that when Hitchens does this (almost immediately), that he has indeed suffered "unbearable stress", and that this is a satisfactory example and proof-case of "severe... physical suffering", which is a threshold requirement for the infliction of pain or suffering under the color of law to be considered torture.
Similarly, all the preceding evidences satisfy the language of the UN Convention Against Torture (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html) to which the US is a signatory.
In contrast, asserting that Romney does not support torture but rather "enhanced interrogation" is itself biased. First, it is a statement unsupported by the resources cited, footnotes [180] and [188]. Secondly, the term "enhanced interrogation" is a term routinely used as a catchall for interrogation techniques employed by the US government which self-evidently must fall outside the range of interrogation methods one readily associates with acceptable conduct (hence, "enhanced" interrogation), but for which there is no substantiating law.
Out of an interest in strict accuracy and fairness, I believe these examples justify editing the entry for Mitt Romney to reflect his genuine opinion on the subject of torture.
Not done: Welcome. This is not an appropriate place to argue whether "enhanced interogation techniques" are torture. Some people agree with you and others see a distinction between the two. I have the impression that Romney falls in the latter group and claiming he supports torture under those circumstances would misrepresent his position in much the same way that an editor with an anti-abortion POV might characterize a pro-choice politician as being opposed to murder, except in the case of unborn children. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Please fix last sentence in lede
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"Since then has published" should not have been published.166.137.137.148 (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Fixed; thanks for the spot. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Page Formatting Problem
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The main article does not format properly on my browser. The beginning of the body text is so narrow that it's hard to read. Between the text and the info box there is a large column of white space. It looks like the first info box is included in a table that also includes wider info boxes below it.
Please use div elements with positioning information instead of tables. Tables are intended for presenting tabular information only. They are not the right way to do page layout.Bostoner (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If you click 'Edit' and look at the article's code, you'll see that it's not written in HTML but instead a higher-level markup language that HTML is generated from. Thus, we have no control over whether tables or div elements or anything else is generated. That said, no one else has reported the problem you are seeing. What is your browser and version, OS and version, display size, and display resolution? Wasted Time R (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Looked like a president
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
From the presidential campaign section: "Moreover, with his square jaw, handsome face, white teeth, and full head of dark hair greying slightly at the temples, Mitt Romney looked like a president."
I think "looked like a president" is clearly a value judgment, since there is no common standard for what a president should or shouldn't look like. A better way to phrase this sentence would be as follows:
"For some observers, Mitt Romney's appearance and demeanor was more attractive and seemingly presidential than his political opponents." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.48.48.190 (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There's three cites on that statement already and I could easily add more. The same thing was frequently said about Romney's father, too. In both cases, many observers had the same immediate reaction – this guy looks like a president. Doesn't mean they should be president (that would be the value judgment). Your proposed phrasing misses the point, since these sources aren't saying anything about his demeanor or his opponents. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The phrasing should read something like "Romney was described by political analysts as looking like a President". Regardless of however many people say it, who looks like a what remains an opinion rather than a fact, and has to be communicated across as such. You could find a million sources that describe Citizen Kane as a "great movie" - but we wouldn't state "Citizen Kane is a great movie" in that article. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Why should an encyclopedic entry about a politician include anything about whether or not he or she "looks like a president?" Is there any informational value that would be gained from this statement befitting an encyclopedia? I don't see the point of this statement. It makes the article look like a fluff biographical piece.Shabeki (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
WP states it for the same reason that newspapers and magazines and books state it about Romney and his father. Elections are won on all sorts of criteria, both those you would approve of and those you wouldn't, and a biography of a politician has to describe everything that went into that figure's successes and failures. Physical appearance is part of that. And WP does not shy away from issues of appearance; consider the Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates article for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Sky Blu incident inclusion
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This incident was distributed by the Associated Press during the Winter Olympics in 2010 and it deserves a historical note. Tallmat (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You put version 3 IN ADDITION TO version 2 on page! ! 97.238.81.122 (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments from Wasted Time R were considered but this is extremely well cited. Mitt Romney's public life included this incident, which was produced in be communications on the internet by LMFAO. It was a production of public discourse, involving MittRomney, beyond his volitional sovereignty. This is not a political profile, but rather a living biography. It is a relevant note in his interactions in public life and should be in some main content part of his living biography. I have already edited the text to be balanced between points-of-view, but feel free to tweak this; it should remain nonetheless in some form on his page. [12:15, August 24, 2010 Tallmat]
As an uninvolved editor, I must disagree. I think it should be on the public image article, and not on the main article. I cannot see any reason why this incident is so special that it requires a special mention on the main article. Spalds (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
In making that judgement of relevancy there is a universalizing perspective of what is, and is not relevant in Mitt Romney's life that some of you are debating. This was Mitt Romney's first confrontation with a public artist involving law enforcement, and where the artist actually responded with several videos online. The information is well cited and in relation to his public image and perhaps this information has circulated more in relation to international news, and rap and black communities than the American public at large. It is important for Wiki communities avoid developing biographies as political platforms in the disparate public discourses of Mitt Romney- hence the section "Public Image" is appropriate. [07:32, August 24, 2010 Tallmat]
This is a disagreement among three options:
Don't mention the Sky Blu incident at all in the Mitt Romney article and leave it for the public image article if it is anywhere
Mention it briefly in the main article text in chronological place in his life, with an entry in the Notes section giving a further description as to what happened
Give a full description of what happened in the article text
My feeling is that in the perspective of Romney's whole life, this is a very minor incident. Yes, it got media play when it happened (almost anything will, since the media has an insatiable need to fill space and air time), but it's been mostly forgotten since then. This Google News chart shows how quickly attention to it has evaporated. Thus I think that either #1 or #2 is the right approach; I'm willing to live with #2. (There are also some content differences between the descriptions in #2 and #3; #3 is written with a marked anti-Romney tone, such as the ridiculous sentence "Contrary to Fehrnstrom's statement, Romney was not Governor of Massachusetts during the time of this incident." It is customary to refer to an officeholder by their past title even after they have left office!) Anyway, additional opinions welcome, assuming anyone is watching this article (the inactivity on this talk page compared to four years ago at this time is one more piece of evidence of the declining population of WP editors). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I would favor #1, but #2 is ok. Spalds (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Weeks pass ... as I predicted, not much reaction (everyone's now at Christine O'Donnell), but there is clearly no consensus for option #3, so I have reverted it back to option #2. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This page is semi-protected and I don't want to search out other edits to become registered so I can do this one:
He has stated that both diplomatic and military efforts should both be used to achieve success in the region.
uses repetitively the word "both", could be:
He has stated that diplomatic and military efforts should both be used to achieve success in the region.
or
He has stated that both diplomatic and military efforts should be used to achieve success in the region.
It is under the Foreign Policy sub-section of this article.
Thank you.
Doog emos (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Doog Emos
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
We should remove that Kennedy won the debate. The source is a biographer from the Boston Globe and the Globe has always endorsed a Kennedy and almost alwaysDemocrats in every single race.Unicorn76 (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is another opinion on how won http://www.jeffjacoby.com/3249/teds-spear-broken. If no one object I will remove an obvious POV.Unicorn76 (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The Boston Globe source is from a straight multi-part news series, which complies with WP:RS and can be used here. What the Boston Globe editorial page does is irrelevant, otherwise every news story from every newspaper in America would have to be disqualified from use in WP, since virtually every newspaper does candidate endorsements. Furthermore if you read the Kennedy series in the Globe, you'll see that it pulls no punches regarding the depths that Kennedy had sunk to in the late 1980s and early 1990s; the Kennedy family was unhappy upon its publication. On the other hand, the Jacoby piece is from an op-ed columnist, which carries no weight in terms of WP:RS and cannot be used here. So no, you can't remove this statement. If you survey a bunch of straight news stories concerning the debate and find they are evenly split on who won, then you will have a point. Or if you can point to public opinion polls taken after the debate on who won. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
That writer is a Kenndy biographer and the Boston Globe has always been in the Kennedy's pocket. The Kennedy series which i did read was very slanted towards Ted as is everything else. If I give you a Boston Herald source saying that Romney won the debate will you agree to remove it?Unicorn76 (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently doing a review of a bunch of sources on the debate, from newspaper stories at the time and from subsequent books. From what I've seen so far I agree that what the article says is too simplistic. The most common description is that the debate was a draw on points, with both sides able to make their case and get in some effective jabs against the other. However, Kennedy benefitted more from the debate because he was already ahead in the polls ahead going in, and because he performed above some peoples' expectations by showing he wasn't completely washed up and could still be coherent and thus still do the job. I'll keep researching this and then make changes to the articles involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Is it correct that Mitt Romney is listed in the Stanford University alumni category? He attended Stanford for a year, but did not graduate. Wiktionary defines "alumnus" as a (male) student or graduate. Since Romney is neither a student nor a graduate of Stanford University, I think that he should be removed from that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.202.158 (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with you, only graduation should count, but my impression is that editors apply the category for any attendance, not just those that lead to a degree. If you want to pursue this, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities is probably the place to go. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
His family lived in Mexico for a long time, his father was born there. Should he be included in the Mexican American category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.35.40.136 (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
No. This has been discussed before. His ancestors were U.S. citizens who fled to Mexico for political reasons. His father came the U.S. at the age of five. Mitt has very little connection to anything Mexican. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, birther rumblings!(?) Maybe the governor could start to wear a serape and sombrero when he does political appearances in San Antonio? The other Governor Romney, Mitt's father George--who'd dealt with a birther (althought they obviously didn't call it that then) concern (Wikilink) when he unsuccessfully ran for the Republican nod in '68--may well have taken more than one trek in his life to his hometown: the reverse of the longhorn trails (Wikilink) from former meatpacking plants on the Great Lakes river-trade-route in Chi-Town down through the Texas range and on to Old Mexico. They've a passel of kin down there, obviously--eg, Meredith Romney. ---- Hmm, somebody whose father was born in Mexico--especially if the person also spoke Spanish, I guess?--might make a credible claim to the status "Mexican American" on university applications, no?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
WP editors have a peculiar obsession with the ethnic heritage categories. But as far as I know Mitt has never self-identified as a Mexican American, on college admissions forms or anywhere else. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Mormon
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Why is LDS explained as "Mormon" here, while for example it isn't so on the Harry Reid wikipage? Since "Mormon" at least for some people has a derogatory meaning I wonder about that. Anybody who wants to know the meaning of LDS can just click on the link. Opinion? Abe 92.202.55.148 (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
As I count it, the article uses "Mormon" about 8 times, and uses "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "LDS Church" about 7 times. So both terms are represented. Why is "Mormon" used at all? Partly this is convenience ("Mormon" is a lot easier to use as an adjective), partly it is because it is the more commonly known term, and partly because Romney doesn't shy away from the term (for example saying "I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it" in his "Faith in America" speech). Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think you were referring to the infobox religion field, which said
I agree that the parenthetical is unnecessary here and out of line with how most other articles show this. I've removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Source 28 and 29
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Does anybody have an alternative reference for the information cited with the aforementioned sources? You have to be a member to access 28 and 29 is a book, which makes it harder to look up.----Dark Charles 06:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Looks like about half or more of the Boston Globe's excellent "The Making of Mitt Romney" series is now behind a paywall. Well, that's capitalism, they have to make money somehow. WP:V doesn't say anything about verification being easy; in fact, it says "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." On the other hand, page 46 of the Hewitt book can be seen on Google Books, so you can verify the Harvard class ranks there. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough... I get concerned when I can't look up information cited on Wikipedia easily. It was good thinking checking Google books.----Dark Charles 21:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. But I reverted your change of the citation for this. Per the WP:CITESHORT method, this article uses a full book cite in the Bibliography section and short form cites in the actual footnotes. This saves a lot of space. And we generally don't provide links to individual pages within Google Books, because in their "limited preview" mode it's often random luck whether any user can see a particular page or not. Finally, your statement "I get concerned when I can't look up information cited on Wikipedia easily" is a common but wrong perception of how things work here. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to use books and academic journals as sources for articles, even though they usually aren't freely available online. Look for instance at Tourette syndrome, a Featured Article (best of the best). Almost all of its footnotes point to things that you can't easily see unless you belong to a paid medical journal article database. That's the way it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Political positions section revamped
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have completely replaced the existing "Political positions" section. It was 2007-centric (since much of it was written during the time of his presidential campaign) rather than evenly covering his entire career, and it went into too much detail on issues it selected and completely ignored issues it didn't select. It's much better to leave this kind of exploration to the Political positions of Mitt Romney article, which can treat every issue and not just some, and can explore each of them in appropriate depth. And any positions with particular biographical import are already discussed in the biographical narrative sections. Accordingly, I've replaced this section with a more general treatment of Romney's practical and ideological approach to politics (and business, since they are linked) and how it has evolved, or not evolved, over time.
Note that a number of FA or GA political figure articles do the same. The "Political positions of X" article handles all the positions in detail, while the Political positions section in the "X" article just deals with a summary view. Examples include John McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joe Biden, and Ted Kennedy, among others. In cases where the person has served in Congress it's a bit easier, since the National Journal, ADA, ACU, and other interest group ratings give a convenient way of summarizing positions, but it can also be done for someone with an executive career. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Redundancy in lead
Latest comment: 13 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion
Bain and Company, Bain Capital, the 2002 Winter Olympics etc. are each mentioned and wikilinked twice in the lead, so there's some serious redundancy going on there. Also, regarding his father, it would be adequate in the lead to merely say that he was a CEO, governor, and cabinet secretary, with details provided later in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but User:Eustress thought otherwise. Before Eustress's changes, the lead looked like this, and the only double mention was of Governor of Massachusetts. The double mention of Bain & Company CEO is especially unfortunate, since he didn't become a CEO in the conventional sense there, but instead was brought in for a temporary stint to turn things around, after he had already achieved success with Bain Capital. (The wording re Bain & Company needed some improvement in the prior lead, as well). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's the edit in question from December 14. There apparently wasn't a prior discussion here at the talk page, and I don't understand what the edit summary means ("flow mods to lead"). Can we please revert to the immediately prior version of the article, plus any of the subsequent non-controversial edits?
While Eustress is an excellent editor (and did a fine job on the McCain GAR), I think the major changes to this Romney lead need to be discussed, and maybe broken down into smaller steps.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I see you've gone ahead and done this. I've clarified the Bain & Company role. A different problem I had with the lead all along is that it didn't give any sense for Romney's accomplishments in business and in the Olympics. His stature is as much based on that as anything he did as governor. I've now some brief descriptions in this regard. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I waited a smidge past 24 hours, until 17:15 on 21 December. I felt that gave interested people plenty of time to respond. And all I did was revert the lead to a recent previous version without making any other changes. But I hope to get a chance soon to look over the whole article. I'm sure there must be a better way, for example, to say that he "learned the ways of Bain & Company".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a (clever?) allusion to the "Bain way". Most of the article is now how I envision it, except for the scattershot "Subsequent activities" section which I hope to get to shortly. After that, I'll be putting it up at GAN. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the inside jokes are best confined to the article talk page. Anyway, I'll try to read and comment about this whole article today or tomorrow, not that I'll necessarily have anything useful to say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I've gotten through the section on his business career. I just made some very small tweaks, for two reasons. First, you've gotten better at this, and second I'm somewhat handicapped by editing only on my iPhone. I may finish on a desktop though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the checking and the improvement edits. There's only one change you made that I object to, which is giving the English translation of Il est mort. It seems like dumbing down the article, especially given that between the textual context and general knowledge of English words like "mortal", "mortuary", "mortician", Morticia Addams, etc., even someone who's never taken French can know what it means. And if they are still stumped, there's always online translation services. Since WP math and science articles – like, say, Bose–Einstein condensate – aren't dumbed down, I think it's good not to do it in political articles either. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It's no big deal, using only the French is fine, but you may want to reconsider omitting quote marks. A quote is a quote. Even Carolyn Jones would use them in this instance, I suspect.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I apologize for my absense from the conversation. Here are my concerns with how the lead was before I edited and how it reads now:
Romney is notable for multiple reasons, so why only highlight his govenorship in lead sentence? I agree that some specificity is better than none, but why not briefly highlight all of his notable roles? Why emphasize only the government role? WP:OPENPARA states that the opening paragraph should explain (1) what the person did and (2) why the person is significant. I feel my iteration (repeated below) may address this issue. With regards to Anythingyouwant's initial concern, redundancy should be avoided on Wikipedia in general; however, WP:LEAD only discourages redundancy within the first sentence, and in this case, it may provide a good agenda for the rest of the lead, given Romney's varied career.
Should we provide a little more information about George Romney, Mitt's father, in the lead? Saying he was a "businessman and politician" provides little context about Mitt's upbringing.
I recognize this is a complicated edit, so thank you for your consideration. —Eustresstalk 14:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Eustress, thanks for stopping by, and happy holidays. :-)
Since lead-writing isn't an exact science, it's often more about stylistic taste. But here are some of the policy pronouncements that strike me as most relevant: "[T]he notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences....Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it....The first paragraph should define the topic without being overly specific."
I suspect that there are former CEOs of Bain and Company, as well as former organizers of the Olympics, who don't have Wikipedia articles about them. But even if they do, it seems to me that Romney is much more notable and famous for being a former governor and presidential candidate. Sure, the stuff about Bain and the Olympics belongs in the lead, but I tend to think readers ought to be eased into it later in the lead. Likewise, I don't think Romney's notability is very strongly related to who his father was. The article later on discusses that he did not capitalize on his father's reputation (except perhaps in his Senate bid). In any event, specifying which exact cabinet department his father headed seems like too much detail for the lead, which may obscure the main messages that need to be gotten across in the lead. As a tangential aside, it also may be that putting a lot of detail about his parents in the lead will invite even more detail in the main article about his grandparents and other ancestors, which in the past was a contentious subject at this article, but I think my opinion about the lead would be the same regardless. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Anythingyouwant that the lead is more art than science. I'm okay with Eustress's more expanded reference to George in this proposal, which is in parentheses and a little terser than in Eustress's previous version. While it's true that Mitt's successes haven't been related to who George was, George was a big influence on Mitt (as the article states several times) and the biographical comparisons have been made many times (as the article also mentions) so it's not out of place. But if the reference is reduced to just "(a businessman and politician who was Governor of Michigan)" I'd be okay with that too. I'm not worried about mentions of George pulling in all of Mormon history; this is a new era in the Mitt Romney article and that's not going to happen again. As for the first paragraph, as I said above I'm reluctant to include Bain & Company and Bain Capital there. Neither is a household name so the repetition of them and their links seems a bit excessive. Furthermore, the construction "He was CEO of the management consulting firm Bain & Company, co-founder of Bain Capital, ..." is a bit misleading, in that his successes with Bain Capital happened before he became CEO of Bain & Company, and the latter was more of a short-term rescue stint than a regular CEO position that you work your way up to and hold for a long time. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure, "(a businessman and politician who was Governor of Michigan)" would be okay. Compare George W. Bush where his father is mentioned in the lead, but without specifying that he was a former CIA chief, UN ambassador, etc.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Here are some thoughts moving forward then: (1) Can we move Mitt's parents to the second paragraph? Not sure they belong in the first paragraph. (2) The first sentence needs some minor modifications to match subject and verb tenses correctly. (3) If George Romney elaboration is permitted, should we list role as U.S. Secty of HUD as well? (seems quite notable). The following is a suggested version of the first two sentences:
Regards —Eustresstalk 00:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Moving George to second paragraph is fine with me. But if you mention Sec HUD, you need to mention CEO of AMC too, as he was more famous (including making the cover of Time magazine and appearing in TV commercials) for that. As for the first paragraph, I'd keep the "70th" in, since that seems to be standard form. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Saying in the lead that his father was Governor of Michigan seems like enough, and moving him to second paragraph seems fine. You know, considering that his Mom was a woman (obviously), her Senate candidacy back then was rather unusual by the standards of that time, which is another reason not to say a disproportionate amount about her husband in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to make any minor post-hoc edits. Thanks. —Eustresstalk 16:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
"Making of Mitt Romney" series
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Looks to me like the series from the Boston Globe is behind a pay wall, but the series was also published in the Deseret News which is free online, so it might be worthwhile to include the Deseret News links in the respective footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you have links for all of them there, or to the Deseret News showcasing the series? I see this one for Part 2, but the series link goes back to the Boston Globe. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm back on my iPhone now, so I don't have the links handy. They're easy to find though. You just copy the first few words that are divulged at the Globe website, and search for that quote in combination with "Deseret". BTW, each article in the series is also fully available for free at findarticles, but there's no need for that if you can get it all from Deseret.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I found four of the parts in the clear at Deseret News and added them as alt sources to the BG series footnotes. But Part 1, Part 5, and Part 7 are behind Deseret's paywall. And those aren't free at findarticles either, from what I could see. Not sure why the series articles are handled differently from each other, unless this is just some randomizing process at work. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks very much, I've added these to the article. (Deseret News is missing the boat if they don't get the archive to purge the story when they paywall it.) I've now got on my computer saved copies of all seven main parts, and several of the sidebar parts that are still in the clear. But can't find this sidebar from Part 3 and this sidebar from Part 5. You see these clear anywhere? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Not clear. They may be at archive.org somewhere, but I don't think archive.org is directly searchable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
There were a couple of other old Globe articles I wanted, so I shelled out $9.95 and got these two as well. Gotta do my part to salvage the failing American newspaper industry ... Wasted Time R (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Poll results about being less likely to vote for a Mormon
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This article says, "polls indicated that about a quarter of Republican voters said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who was a Mormon". I'm going to tentatively strike out the word "Republican". The cited source says: "more people do express reservations about voting for a Mormon (25%) than about supporting a candidate who is an evangelical Christian (16%), a Jew (11%) or a Catholic (7%)." So, this ugly (IMHO) sentiment seems to be shared by people generally and not just Republicans. This interpretation is seemingly buttressed by a February 2007 USA Today/Gallup poll that found only 75% of "liberals" would be willing to vote for a Mormon for president.[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Both facts are true. The text says "Overall, one-in-four respondents to a recent nationwide Pew survey said that they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate for president", which means all people, and the third box down says that of "All Rep/lean Rep voters" 25% are less likely to vote for a Mormon. This corresponds with the statement "There are virtually no partisan differences in overall views of Mormons". My guess is the article has focused on the Republican number, rather than the overall number, since that's the earlier obstacle for Romney. But I have no problem labelling a quarter of all Americans as ugly in addition to a quarter of a subset of them, so I've changed the text to include both figures. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Anybody care to explain what the false generalization about the French being "wine lovers" has to do with Mitt Romney? I say we throw those two words out. Qworty (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the idea is that converting to Mormonism means you have to give up alcoholic beverages, which the average Frenchman would be reluctant to do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an "average Frenchman" or an "average American" or an average anything else. It is a nonsense term and a false generalization. I don't believe "the wine-loving French" belongs in an encyclopedia. It isn't neutral POV. Qworty (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Like Anythingyouwant said, this is in the context of trying to pitch a religion that prohibits consumption of alcohol, which two of the three sources for this sentence mention. This context was implicit and thus may not have been clear, so I've changed to text to more explicitly say this, and to add that the unfamiliarity of the religion was also an impediment (the third stumbling block, the U.S. role in Vietnam, is already mentioned later in the paragraph). There doesn't have to be an "average Frenchman", but it is a well-established fact that the French drink more alcohol than people in most countries do; a 2000 WHO study placed the French 6th in the world in this category whereas the U.S. is 32nd, with the French drinking 50 percent per capita more than the U.S. (see here; these statistics are especially well-known because of the part they may play in the French Paradox). So the bottom line is, this is going to make a religion that prohibits alcohol a tougher sell in France than it would be in some other countries. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) If the point is to list all of the impediments to converting to Mormonism, there are a lot more significant ones than drinking a glass of wine. Shall we start loading all of those problems with Mormonism into the article now? How about the fact that the Mormon Church was racist and that there is a higher percentage of racists in the U.S. than in France? If that doesn't belong in here, then the wine doesn't either. Is there WP:RS of even ONE French person rejecting Romney's proselytizing in favor of a glass of wine? Of course there isn't. The fact remains that this "wine-loving French" business is nothing more than WP:OR and speculation on the part of WP editors. By no WP standards does it belong in the article. Qworty (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Qworty, I'm not particularly attached to the line about wine, I wouldn't object to it's removal, and you make an interesting point about racism. But please don't think that this was just speculation by a WP editor; it's in the cited source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, getting anybody to convert to any religion is difficult, especially by the time of the 20th century. But newspaper reporters Neil Swidey and Michael Paulson and Michael Kranish say that it was made even harder in France due to Mormons prohibiting drinking of alcohol. Your argument is with them, not us. And I've now added another cite to this, from this New Yorker article. Mitt Romney said 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!’ ... now I was on the street, lower than a Fuller Brush salesman, in a place where Americans were not particularly liked, where I couldn’t speak the language very well, and where selling religion, particularly Mormonism, was going to be very painful.” If these writers are saying it, and Mitt is saying it, I think we can be saying it as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
LOL. Great reasoning, Wasted Time. So if it's in the New Yorker article, it belongs here, huh? Okay. This is from the New Yorker article: "Although Romney, like other Mormons, defends the practice of polygamy in the early days of the Church by pointing to a surplus of women in Utah, census reports for the time show roughly equal numbers of men and women." Go ahead and indicate where in the Romney article this information should go, and you can keep your wine. Deal? Qworty (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hah, no deal. Polygamy is the neutron bomb of this article's chequered history. Unless Mitt time travels and runs for president in 1884, his view on the history of Mormon polygamy has no biographical significance. His time as a Mormon missionary in France does have biographical significance. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hurry up
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
WTR, you'd better hurry up and take this to Good Article Nomination. I see that some loquacious but well-meaning editor keeps adding and adding without taking anything out, which could lead to BLOAT. Hurry, before it's too late.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Very funny ;-) The good news is that the "Activities after 2008" section will be shorter in a bit. But at 53 kB (8659 words) readable prose size, this article is nothing anyway. Take at look at User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics; there are more than 200 featured articles this size or longer. Elvis Presley tops the list, and in his latter years he indeed knew bloat. Mitt Romney, you're no bloat. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, the "Activities after 2008" rework is done; it is indeed a bit smaller in text (739 words to 715) even if it grew somewhat in code size (due to added citing). Wasted Time R (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I guess we want a cross between Elvis and Miss Meyers (don't try to visualize).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Mandates
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Since the lead mentions that he supported a health insurance mandate in Massachusetts, can we briefly mention in the lead (e.g. at the end or parenthetically where mandates are already mentioned) that he has opposed any similar mandate at the federal level, as explained further later in the article? Otherwise, readers of the lead are likely to get the impression that he supports stuff like the individual mandate passed by Congress.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The lead generally describes the important things a person has done, not what they say they will do if their life takes a certain course. The Massachusetts health care law was a landmark achievement that Romney had a lot to do with making happen, and thus deserves mention in the lead. His position on the federal health care law does not; who knows what he would do if he were to actually gain office? Cf. GHWB raising taxes or Obama extending the Bush tax cuts. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I generally agree with that. What I'm suggesting is to clarify what he has done. He has supported the state mandate and opposed the federal one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
If, after he becomes president, he helps bring about and signs a repeal of the federal mandate, then I agree that should go into the lead. Until then it's just talk, and the lead should be about deeds not words. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
You agree that the lead should not focus solely on his successes to the exclusion of failures. Thus, the lead discusses his failed Senate bid, even though that bid turned out to be all talk without actually succeeding in doing anything. He opposed the federal individual mandate, but his senators enacted it anyway. Leaving the lead as it is gives the false impression that he supported the federal individual mandate when he actually did not, and four or five words clarifying this would not bloat the lead. Alternatively, we could remove the word "mandates" from the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Your second and third sentences above are ridiculous. I've changed the lead to say "state-level mandates", similar to the change that you made earlier to the article body. Now nobody can start imagining this says something about federal-level mandates. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit. I still think mentioning mandates in the lead is kind of pointy, but whatever. My recollection is that the media only began to emphasize the presence of a mandate in Romneycare after Obama started pushing for a federal mandate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
For some reason that link doesn't produce any results for me. The source cited in the body of the Wikipedia article does not use the word "mandate" to describe RomneyCare, but does discuss the idea: "The Governor was also the one who put on the table the idea of requiring individuals to buy health insurance if they were not covered by their employers — a move that gave Democrats the political cover they needed to put other controversial parts of the plan into place." The lead is okay as-is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Typo in "Missionary work, later education, marriage, and family"
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following sentence is in the 4th paragraph down in this section; "Regarding his own status in terms of the military draft, Romney had initially gotten a student deferment, then like most other Mormorn missionaries he had received a ministerial deferment while in France."
I bolded the portion that was incorrect, but I cannot change it myself. Can someone with editing access please correct this typographical error? [08:34, February 3, 2011 72.208.107.95]
Done. Thanks for the spot. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Phrasing
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
In the opening sentence, someone had said the word "politician" is unnecessary, and of course the precise number "70" is kind of trivial. I rewrote the sentence: '"Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman, and former Governor of Massachusetts who served from 2003 to 2007 as a Republican." This is no big deal, but I don't see why it was reverted.
Also, I don't see the need to keep hammering home the idea that Mitt's family was well-off. It gets slightly redundant. So, when describing his high school, it seems enough to say that many of the students were privileged. We've already said that he was. I don't see the need to detail the gradations of privilege, by pointing out here that while he was privileged, some of them were even more privileged. We might as well say that "Mitt's family was rich, and so were the families of many classmates, and some of them were even richer." That's basically the effect of the current phrasing, and it sounds slightly like overkill to me. As for Mitt "idolizing" his father, I think "greatly admired" works just as well, and is a more conservative and less judgmental way of putting it, but it's no big deal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The "70th" is a de facto standard – the vast majority of articles on governors give this number. If you don't like it, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States governors or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography or someplace like that would be the place to try to change it globally, rather than in one particular article. About "politician", I personally don't care much either way and am okay with it gone.
Your "more" rather than "even more" on the Cranbrook comparison doesn't work, because just "more" implies that Romney wasn't privileged at all. And I'm not trying to hammer home anything, just tell the story. And for certain this isn't a negative on Mitt, who made all his money on his own and not through inheritance or his father's position.
As for "idolized", I'm trying to make the article's prose engaging, in the words of the FAC guidelines, and "idolized" is more lively than the bland "greatly admired". And the word isn't in the slightest judgmental! George Romney was a great and noble man with many great accomplishments, and there's no reason why a child shouldn't have idolized him. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm satisfied that we have made some (perhaps slight) improvements to the article yesterday and today, and am not going to quibble. Hopefully, the recent changes will facilitate the GAN.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Alma Mater
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It's disingenuous to list Stanford as one of his school affiliations in the introduction; given that he only attended a year before leaving for BYU, that's best left for the 'youth' section. (After all, only BYU is listed under 'Alma mater' in the info box, and Stanford does not count him in its alumni.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.249.107 (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mitt Romney/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer:TeacherA (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a great start for a good article but needs work before it reaches that point. Go through the article with a fine tooth comb and make it better.
Romney may be running against Obama. Obama is a FA. Romney is referred to as a "politician" in the introduction but not Obama. This is probably an oversight. Insert non-formatted text here
Actually, several editors spent a lot of time working out the first paragraph of the lead; see Talk:Mitt Romney#Redundancy in lead. I think "politician" is used more in the case, like this one, where the person is no longer holding the office; looking at three other recent ex-governors, George Pataki, Jon Corzine, and Bill Richardson, I see they all have "politician" in their first sentence.
There have been several changes to the article during the past couple days, to try and more fully address the comments at this page. One change is that the word "politician" is now removed from the first sentence. Although the word is commonly used in Wikipedia articles, it is also commonly not used. Since it's not essential, I don't see any harm in removing it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Care must be used when writing. It is called the "affluent suburb of Bloomfield...". Without saying it must stay or must go, be very careful when using that type of description. The same when saying his school was "elite". Obama's high school is extremely elite but it is not mentioned (maybe that's why it is a FA).
"Affluent suburb" is a direct paraphrase of the cited source: "... By the time Mitt settled on his preferred name in kindergarten, the family had moved from Detroit to the affluent suburb of Bloomfield Hills." It's always important in a biography to indicate what kind of economic environment a person grew up in, since they often shapes how they look at the world. "Elite" is also directly from the source: "In the seventh grade, Mitt enrolled at Cranbrook School, an elite boys school with world-class sculptures sprinkled across its Bloomfield Hills campus. Surrounded by other sons of privilege, many of whom came from greater wealth and more established families, Mitt wasn't a standout." I don't think you'll find many sources disagreeing that Cranbrook is an elite school. I don't know why the Obama article doesn't characterize the Punahou School a little better.
Does things like "Mitt campaigned for him using loudspeakers at county fairs, exclaiming "You should vote for my father for Governor. He's a truly great person."[4]" belong. Think hard, again.
I used this because it illustrates the hero-worship he had for his father, which is one of the biographical themes that virtually every newspaper and magazine profile of Romney has emphasized. It also illustrates the sort of early 1960s, clean-cut, 'gee whiz' type personality that Mitt had (and still has, to a large degree).
There is much text devoted to the car accident. Think hard if it belongs. These are the type of questions you have to ask. Actually, some of the details are entertaining to read, like it was a Citroen.
I did think about this, as I did about everything else in the article. This was a critical event in Mitt's life, for several pretty obvious reasons. The very good Boston Globe seven-part series on Romney devoted a good amount of attention to it, as well as an entire long sidebar to one of the parts. It doesn't get that much weight here, but I think it is deserving of a solid treatment.
"Leveraged buyouts such as those Bain Capital did sometimes led to layoffs.[31][38] Of these, Romney later said, "Sometimes the medicine is a little bitter but it is necessary to save the life of the patient." What is this trying to say. It would be like saying the President of Exxon didn't do anything for some employment cases, causing some terminated employees a long legal battle. Again, think hard about this and other paragraphs. Unlike the car accident, consider toning this down or taking it out.
This can't be taken out. Next to when he was governor, Romney affected more peoples' lives (whether for the better or the worse) when he was conducting leveraged buyouts with his private equity business than at any other time. The effect of corporate raiders, private equity, buyouts, etc. was a much-debated aspect of American capitalism back in the 1980s, and the specific effects of Romney's actions have been argued during his political career, especially during the Senate race against Kennedy. The Boston Globe series devotes a lot of attention to this issue, as does a long New York Times story. As for the specific quote being used, this is part of how Romney expressed the need for initial pain in order for businesses to recover and eventually have a chance to succeed. It's only fair for the article to let Romney express something like this in his own words. As for your Exxon analogy, I'm afraid I didn't quite follow that.
"During his years in business, Romney did not neglect his religious duties. He tithed constantly, giving millions of dollars to the LDS Church.[" This is commentary. It is conversational, but be very careful. There are many statements like this in the article. "Romney came from behind to win the Massachusetts Republican Party's nomination for U.S. Senate after advertising on television heavily," is another example. Say "Bob Dole advertised a lot on TV" and is that good?
I'm not sure whether you're concerned about the tone or the content on the first case; could you clarify? As for the second case, the article is simply trying to describe how he defeated Larkian for the nomination. While having more money to spend on television ads doesn't always help a candidate win, in a lot of cases it does. I'm not sure what your Dole analogy is about – are you referring to his win of the 1996 Republican nomination or his loss to Clinton in the general election?
Be very careful when you describe his governorship.
I was.
Huckabee attacked Romney for failing to eat the chicken skin of a fried chicken thigh. Did you know that?! There is a CNN reference. I am not telling you that it should be in the article. This is just a factoid that I know.
Good point. I've removed one of them, that is already included in two other articles.
Be very careful about political positions. The Obama article had a discussion and it was decided to remove it. Political positions before or now? If now, is that a political advertisement? Think hard but I will not use that as a reason for or against GA. Just make sure it's written well.
I did remove the "old" Political positions section, which was 2007-centric, and replaced it with the current one, that covers his whole career in more general terms. See Talk:Mitt Romney#Political positions section revamped.
The use of the notes at the end is very entertaining but thing hard if things like the Vulcan grip should be in a GA.
Some other editors were adamant that the Sky Blu episode be included, so the eventual resolution has most of it in a note. That seems okay to me. And a little levity isn't a bad thing in WP articles, which tend to be very dry.
In short, I have commented on editorial content. Making sure all the references are in the same format is important but we shouldn't have articles as FA or GA just because the t's are crossed.
Just in case you see any references that are not in the same format, point them out and I'll fix them.
Good luck! TeacherA (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
My responses to your review are interspersed above. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the school, perhaps "prestigious" instead of "elite"? The word "elite" may have negative connotations in this context, as in Mitt's an elitist snob. Not that that was intended, but the word "prestigious" might be just as accurate without the baggage. Regarding "advertising on television heavily" maybe it might be more generous to say something like "buying substantial television time to get out his message." Regarding his religious duties, it does sound slightly odd to hear the voice of Wikipedia announcing that he had certain duties; maybe instead say that he did not neglect his "traditional" religious duties so we're more clear where the duties come from.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed "elite"; between the other text and the picture, the idea should get across. I've used the suggested language for the TV ads. I've removed the whole "did not neglect his religious duties" phrase; the rest of the text in that paragraph should convey that. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added the standard template in External links for Governors. There's a note in the EL section which simply isn't true, and should be removed. References, External links and Further reading each have their own purpose. Flatterworld (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with most of your changes, but I've removed the External links you added for IMDB and Charlie Rose. IMDB is a good source for actors and movie, but it's lousy for politicians. Their entries are riddled with omissions and recentism. If you go to FAC with IMDB as a source for a political BLP, it will get flagged as non-RS. As for Charlie Rose, there's no reason to promote his show in WP articles ahead of all the other interview shows (Meet the Press, Face the Nation, O'Reilly Factor, etc etc) that politicians go on. If you can get Rose added to the Template:GovLinks standard template, like C-SPAN is, then it will appear here by inclusion, but I don't see any rational for adding it on a special basis here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Support. Looks like a good article to me. Well done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Wasted Time R is quite polite in responding. An "A" for effort. However, there are quite a few excuses indicating refusal to improve the article.
Mr. Time R mentioned about why the Obama article doesn't go into Punahou. The probable reason is that it is a FA and if there is change, people will resist (funny, Obama is the politician who won because of promised change). With Romney running for president (ok, he won't admit it yet), if this is a GA, there will be much resistance to any change so, as Jimbo Wales said, we must get it right.
I didn't mention it earlier, but his official portrait as governor should be used. Is Massachusetts a public domain state, like the United States federal government's public domain policy for photos?
I will give him plenty of time to work on this as I am not on a mission to give people an "F". No good teacher would do that. TeacherA (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
TeacherA, you objected to describing Punahou as "elite". So, that word has been removed, and some other changes were made in response to your comments. Maybe it would be useful if you would list what your top concerns are at this point. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding governors and public domain images, per WP:PD#U.S. government works, state and local governments do retain copyright on their works and thus, unlike federal government works, are not in the public domain. That is why the infobox images for governors such as Deval Patrick, William Weld, Sean Parnell, Chris Christie, Jack Markell, Bobby Jindal, and so on, are not the official governor photos. When there is an official-looking photo, such as for Paul Cellucci or Mike Leavitt, it's because the person also held some federal position such as ambassador or cabinet member and it's that image that's being used. However, note that the Mitt Romney#Governor of Massachusetts section does include the official portrait painting of Romney. That's because the painter gave specific permission for his work to be used in WP; see Image:Romney portrait.jpg. Is your suggestion that this portrait be moved to the top image? I'm not sure how other editors would respond to that, but the possibility could be raised. Otherwise, I think this article does as good as it can do in this respect.
Regarding my "excuses indicating refusal to improve the article", it is typical in GA reviews for nominators to respond to reviewer comments and further explain why they made certain choices that they did in writing the article. Reviewers can then further elaborate upon their concerns, and so forth. This does not indicate a refusal to do anything; it is the normal give-and-take of the editorial process. As Anythingyouwant indicates, a number of changes have already been made to the article; it would be helpful if you could be specific about the remaining issues you have and say more precisely what changes should be made in response to them. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, this is not a GA. This is not to say you put in effort or it is bad (opposite of good). The editorial decisions need improvement and merely fulfilling the technical criteria is not enough. Believe me, I have read thousands of essays as a teacher. This would be first rate for a third grader but not a GA for an adult. Sorry. TeacherA (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This article, despite lots of effort fails. Rather than fight and resist, step back for a while and retry.
Tone
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
The tone of this page is hella biased. Someone should re-write it in NPOV. [22:32, February 13, 2011 76.173.194.214]
Seriously, it reads like a campaign ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.10.57.75 (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments like this are not helpful unless (in the case of the first commenter) they identify which way the bias is thought to be going and (in the cases of both commenters) point to several specific places where they think the tone is wrong, or the presentation is skewed, or an omission has been made, etc. In other words, vague condemnations like this leave the article's editors nothing to go on. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
To be fair though, this article's tone is truly strange. I actually have less of an issue with bias. Even though it reads like a campaign ad in some places, it shows a fairly balanced perspective in many others. If anything, the only thing that that is missing in terms of balance is that there are more critical points in the article from a conservative point of view than a liberal point of view which most likely does not reflect reality. If I were to attempt to describe it, the tone is far more "exciting" and "lively" than I would expect for an encyclopedia article. In essence, the prose is expected to be dry, but it is not here. The problem here is probably that the primary contributors are very good writers when very good writing is not actually optimal for an encyclopedia article. Some examples: "displaying bluster or boldness on foreign policy matters", "constantly devise new strategies and plans to deal with new geographical regions and ever-changing market conditions", "Romney frequently invoked his father and his own family and stressed", "matched the commonly held notion that American industry had star players", "political pedigree courtesy of his father, a strong work ethic and energy level, and a large, wholesome-looking family that seemed so perfect", "Moreover, with his square jaw, handsome face, white teeth, and full head of dark hair graying slightly at the temples, Mitt Romney looked like a president.", "The candidate's Mormon religion was also viewed with suspicion and skepticism by some in the Evangelical portion of the party", "carry the momentum and visibility gained through". Sorry, I didn't look through the article exhaustively. I was just skipping around. Personally, I consider myself a terrible writer, but if I were to pick out a unifying theme of what seems "off" about the tone, it is that there are a larger than normal number of adjectives/adverbs and abstract nouns with very strong connotations; as well as a reliance on verbs which are very specific and active which brings up the level of excitement in their respective sentences. --99.21.35.206 (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but I think your premise is flawed. There is no WP guideline that says the prose must be dry or dull. Rather, the criteria for a Featured Article says that for an article to be among the best, it must be that "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". "Engaging" and "brilliant" doesn't sound like "dry" or "not exciting" or "not lively" to me. And why should we go to all the effort to write a 9,000 word article that is dull? No one would read it much past the introduction. Engaging the reader is exactly what I'm trying to do. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm describe this poorly since again, I consider myself to be a rather terrible writer. I'll try to describe it in terms of the WP guidelines. Point 2 of the featured articles criteria links to the manual of style. Of course, these are usually treated as loose guidelines rather than established rules; however, the clarity heading recommends avoiding jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording along with a link to use plain English. The problem with words with strong connotations is that, by definition, they have layers of meaning. That leads to multiple interpretations of text. The lack of a single interpretation is vague. "Romney mentioned his father and his own family" has essentially one meaning, while replacing mentioned with the verb invoked has the same meaning but with additional interpretations that could include almost spiritual undertones, particularly since his father had passed away. The vagueness is whether the spiritual undertones are intentional or just a side effect of using a more engaging verb. I would make the case that if the spiritual undertones are intentional, they should be directly stated. Note that every example from above has at least one similar issue. The plain English article suggests replacing abstract with concrete words. Words or phrases like political pedigree, work ethic, energy level, bluster, boldness, star players, and wholesome-looking lack a concrete meaning. Not that abstract words should be removed completely, there simply seems to be an overabundance in this particular article. The sometimes extraordinary number of adjectives and adverbs in some sentences also seems to break with the suggestion to "Use all the words you need, but no more.". I believe it is these sorts of word selections that cause sections to read as though they might have come from a campaign ad.--99.21.35.206 (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your additional comments (and contrary to what you say, you're not a bad writer at all). But I still have a differing view. If you say "Romney mentioned his father and his own family", that doesn't tell the reader much about the strength or feel of the mention. This wasn't the typical obligatory nod to family and origins – Romney made a point of going to Michigan, where he hadn't lived in over 30 years, and of speaking at an automobile-related site, an industry he had never worked in, and even had a Rambler brought onto stage, the car his father made famous (see Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008#Announcement for a bit more). By saying "invoked", that does give a stronger feel to it, which is what I wanted. This dictionary definition of "invoke" has some examples are in the spirit of the usage here, including "He invoked the memory of his predecessor." Would "He mentioned the memory of his predecessor" or a similar formulation be as effective? To me, no.
Now as to whether this make it sound like a campaign ad, I disagree again. What candidate wants to be seen as father-driven and captive to the past? This announcement staging didn't really buy him much politically. To take another example, the stuff about how "Mitt Romney looked like a president" (which can be supported by as many sources as you want me to give, and which they also said about George Romney) just means that he fits central casting. It doesn't mean the voters will like him, and indeed combined with his credibility problems on issues probably further contributed to his image as a phony. The "2008 presidential campaign" and "Political positions" sections are pretty clear about his shortcomings as a presidential candidate (so far), and I'm pretty mystified how anyone can see this material as a campaign ad. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
All fair and valid points. I will leave it at saying that I disagree not on any specific point (any single sentence that I pulled out as an example would be fine by itself in an article in my opinion; well maybe the "appearance of a president" is pushing it a bit). The issue in my opinion is that clarity is sort of uniformly borderline across the article. For example, your description "This wasn't the typical obligatory nod to family and origins – Romney made a point of going to Michigan, where he hadn't lived in over 30 years, and of speaking at an automobile-related site, an industry he had never worked in, and even had a Rambler brought onto stage, the car his father made famous" (apologies if it's slightly out of context) is in fact very clear. The problem is with situations where you are trying to convey something as complex as the above with a simple change from a word like mentioned to a word like invoked. The word has more meaning, but it is not completely clear what that meaning is since it can go in several directions. I'll just leave this as general feedback on the article in case someone in the future either agrees or disagrees. As a mention, I believe the article is far better than the GA review gave it credit. Comparing it to the work of a third grader is almost insulting.--99.21.35.206 (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Introductory section
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I see there's a long thread above about the introductory section. I haven't waded through it so I'm not going to be bold. I'll just comment that the current version is too focused on giving a capsule chronology, and thereby slights the goal of quickly giving the important points. The reader finds out that Romney attended Stanford before finding out that he ran for President. I looked at the introductory sections of bios of a few other pols who unsuccessfully sought their party's nomination; all gave more prominence to the campaign, and none mentioned education (except that the Gary Hart bio noted his doctorate from Oxford, 20 years after his campaign -- an unusual circumstance that's more notable than most educational attainments, but even the inclusion of that in the introductory section is questionable in my mind).
I suggest beginning the introductory section with something more like this:
Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and Republican Party politician, who served as the 70th Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. Romney was a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2008 United States presidential election, winning several caucuses and primaries but ultimately losing to John McCain. Before entering politics he headed a management consulting business, Bain & Company, and co-founded a related private equity investment firm, Bain Capital.
You'll note that I've dropped a lot of the puffery about Bain's success. Praise for and criticism of his stint at Bain can be covered in detail in the body of the article.
Simply rewriting the first paragraph this way, and leaving the rest untouched (except for removing the parts that I moved up), would be an improvement. Beyond that, though, much of the rest of what's now in the introduction could be moved to the body. I won't try to work out the details until I see if anyone else supports pruning and prioritizing the introductory section this way. JamesMLanetc 23:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Your main point could be addressed by simply adding the following sentence to the first paragraph (as in the Hillary Clinton article): "In the 2008 election, Romney was a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination", but I think that such a sentence might give undue weight to the 2008 failure while omitting from the lead paragraph his present status as a front-runner for 2012. The rest of the lead seems generally okay, and I think ought to remain as-is regardless of whether the first paragraph is expanded, except perhaps for some tweaks to the rest of the lead. Saying that Bain succeeded seems no more inappropriate than saying that his 2008 campaign failed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec)This all depends on one's perspective of what's most important about Romney. I would argue the order is
Governor of Massachusetts
leading 2012 presidential candidate (once he declares)
Head of SLC Olympics Committee
Head of Bain Capital
failed 2008 presidential candidate
I rank highly things that affect people's lives or still have the potential to. While Mitt ran a credible campaign, the fact remains that he closed shop on February 7 of that year, which means he didn't get very far. So I don't see it needing to be mentioned in the first paragraph. But once he announces for 2012, I agree that should go into the first paragraph, because he will be the nominal GOP front-runner at that time and will constantly be in the news regarding it.
As for the more general point about the lead being a capsule chronology, yes that was my goal. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." In other words, a certain percentage of readers just read the lead and then stop. They have to get the essential points of Romney's life out of it. While you may consider it puffery, by any objective business standards, Bain Capital was a huge success. That needs to go into the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Your #2 and #5 are closely related. The only reason Romney is a leading 2012 candidate is that, as you note, he ran a credible campaign in 2008. I wouldn't object to presenting both points together, and thus including his putative front-runner status in the first paragraph, even without an announcement.
Beyond that, I don't see "overview" and "chronology" as synonymous. The overview must necessarily omit some information, such as colleges attended, and skimp on other points, such as giving the date of birth but not the place. To my mind, the fact of his jobs at Bain is basic, like date of birth, but evaluations of it are like place of birth. Supporters saying that Bain was a huge success is like conservative detractors saying that, by any objective political standards, Romney moved to his right when he was trying to appeal to the nationwide Republican Party instead of to the electorate in liberal Massachusetts. Both are amplifications of basic facts and should be addressed in the body of the article.
Overall, it's notable that the current introductory section praises him at every possible turn (Bain success! Olympics success! Governorship success!) while omitting anything negative. JamesMLanetc 00:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Suppose we simply add this to the first paragraph: "He unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, and polls indicate that he has wide support for a second try in 2012." Emphasizing the 2008 failure in this way would also alleviate any concerns about successes that are mentioned later in the lead. That Romney was head of SLC Olympics Committee and head of Bain Capital are already summarized by the line in the first paragraph saying that he is a businessman.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
(od) Upon reflection, I think JML raises a couple of good points. I have added the 2008 and likely 2012 candidacies to the first paragraph, in as terse a form as possible per WP:MOSBEGIN and general practice.
I also think that he's right that something about Romney's ideological shift merits being in the lead, so I've added a first try. FL may not like it much but we'll see.
However I disagree with JML on a couple of points as well. The lead is not too long; per WP:LEAD it should be three or four paragraphs for an article of this size, and currently it's only three (two long and one short). Another way of looking at it is that the article is about 8700 words and the lead is about 350. That's a 25:1 ratio, which doesn't seem excessive to me. The final proof is that I've written GA article leads longer than this ;-)
And I feel strongly that leads needs to say more than just "basic facts". Again, the lead may be the only chance you have to tell the reader what you have to say. "Basic facts" often fail to convey the import of a political figure. Think Barry Goldwater or Ted Kennedy compared to Bob Dole or Paul Simon. These are all long-serving, significant U.S. Senators who ran for president and lost, but the first two had much greater influence and import than the latter two. The lead needs to make things like this clear. As for "praise" and "negatives", this isn't a scoring contest or an exercise in establishing an artificial 'balance'. Up through mid-2006, Romney had by any definition a very successful career, culminating in pushing through an innovative, years-ahead-of-anyone-else, comprehensive solution to a pressing social problem with broad public and bipartisan political support. That's pretty impressive any way you slice it. Since then, things have been a lot rockier for him, including the fact that a big chunk of his own party thinks his signature accomplishment was an act of socialist tyranny. I'm open to how we can convey this in the lead, although the course of the 2012 campaign will help guide that. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Unresponsive GA reviewer
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
User:TeacherA, the reviewer of GAN1, has been very unresponsive during the GAN process. He/She hasn't even edited Wikipedia for the last two weeks (see contributions), and the GAN norm is for the process to usually last for only one week. (This article was nominated on 30 December 2010, and editors here have responded very quickly to any of the reviewer's comments.) The nominating editor of this GAN may want to go to WP:GAR to request assistance. —Eustresstalk 15:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
The lead now says that his views changed from moderate to conservative on several issues when he ran in 2008. Then later in the article, three issues are mentioned: gay marriage, abstinence-only sex education, and abortion. Regarding the first, the cited source says:
[T]he candidate who'd been endorsed in 2002 by the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay group, for his message of tolerance and embrace of some domestic partner benefits, became a crusader against gay marriage.
The source doesn't say that he ever supported gay marriage, so there's no indication that his position ever changed about it. He did become vocal against it, but that was before he ran for president, and was in response to creation of the right by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. So, I hope that WTR can reconsider how this is presented here. To the extent Romney is a "flip-flipper", we should let the facts speak for themselves rather than enhancing the facts. Romney denies flip-flopping on everything but abortion, if I recall correctly. And even if he did flip on all those three issues (which I dispute), still that is a tiny fraction of the sum total of all issues, so we have an undue weight issue. (FL concurs in this analysis.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
For starters let me say that I hate the term "flip-flopper" and only included it in this article because a bunch of sources were using it. I think people change and circumstances change and I'm one of the 4 percent of Americans who actually understood the logic behind John Kerry's famous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" (answer: troop funding bills are a stage for theatrics since everyone knows they are going to pass eventually and the two votes were tied to different amendments).
I've added a few more specifics in the "Political positions" section regarding Romney shifts of position or emphasis. But it's really more than that; it's a very commonly held perception the Romney is not to thine own self being true. If this were the Republican presidential cycles of 1996 or 1988 or 1976, for example, he'd probably be framing himself as a pragmatic, ultra-competent pro-business technocrat with a moral center, which people would have little trouble believing. Romney the Reaganite or Romney the Red Meat Thrower or Romney the Tea Partier, on the other hand, just don't seem so genuine. Now how to capture this in a lead? I'll think on it. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
That's all well and good, WTR, but I've purposely focused here on a specific issue: gay marriage. You haven't responded about it. The fact is, Romney did not change his position about it, whereas this Wikipedia article implies the opposite. Because this article's coverage of that specific issue is so slanted, I will remove all mention of gay marriage, unless it's modified to reflect that he didn't change his position about it.
According to USA Today: "he has never supported gay marriage".[4]. This Wikipedia article implies the opposite. He's never waffled or flip-flopped or shifted or evolved or aligned on this issue, and incidentally his position is identical to Obama's: support for civil unions but opposition to gay marriage.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. The place to start is Governorship of Mitt Romney#Same-sex marriage, then Political positions of Mitt Romney#Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues, then Mitt Romney#Tenure, 2003–2007. Bottom line: Always against same-sex marriage. Always against civil unions, except for about a year or so as governor when he thought it the only way to block same-sex marriage. (If he's subsequently come out in favor of civil unions as you say, point us to a source ...) Vocally for other forms of gay rights in 1994 and 2002 (domestic partnership rights, anti-discrimination laws, hate crimes laws), then shifted emphasis to being vocal and active against gay marriage after that. It's this shift in emphasis that the source is talking about. I'll fix the text in the Mitt Romney#Political positions section, which I think is the only place that's incorrect. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I've tweaked the lead to emphasize "emphasis". This applies not just to LGBT but also to stuff like health care; I'm not aware that he's actually said RomneyCare was a mistake, and instead has deemphasized it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the Political positions section to say "some aspects of gay rights," and I've added a Note that includes his consistent position against gay marriage but also adds a cite that supports the notion of a shift in rhetorical emphasis while governor. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Stance on RomneyCare
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This Wikipedia article discusses his "not mentioning or backing away from the ideas behind his Massachusetts health care law". That seems inaccurate. It makes it sound like he totally stopped mentioning RomneyCare, and also totally backed away from ALL the ideas in RomneyCare. Both of those things are incorrect. At one point, Romney did omit mention of RomneyCare at the health care page of his website, possibly because he was describing what the Feds should do rather than what Massachusetts should do. In any event, this article should not suggest that he has flip-flopped on all of the policies embodied in RomneyCare, because he hasn't. The cited source merely suggests he may have backed away from one idea in RomneyCare, i.e. "abandon[ed] ideas like requiring people to buy health insurance" --- that statement from the New York Times is also somewhat misleading because he continues to defend a state-level individual mandate. Per ABC News:
“
Romney argues the Massachusetts mandate eliminated "free riders" who could afford to pay for insurance but did not and instead were treated at taxpayer expense in emergency rooms. Other states, he says, should be allowed to decide themselves whether, and how, to expand insurance coverage.
”
Link. Thus, not only has he continued to mention RomneyCare; he's also continued to defend it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and edited the article to address this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
There's two separate questions here – what did he say during the 2008 campaign and what has he said since the passage of PPACA. On the former, I've added a third source and changed your "deemphasized" to "rarely mentioned". I think he did back away from some parts of it being carried forward into a federal plan during the campaign, but that level of detail is probably better suited for a Note or for the campaign article. Will get to the latter question later. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The Romney rationale (in your cquote above) is now part of the governorship section, explaining some of his motivation towards going for universal coverage. I've moved/merged all the RomneyCare vs ObamaCare material into the Political positions section, and worked in your bit, although the whole issue may need some description in the 2012 campaign section too once that begins. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Stance on abstinence education
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This article currently says, "Romney's position or choice of emphasis on certain social issues, including ... abstinence-only sex education ... evolved into a more conservative stance during his time as governor." This incorrectly suggests that as governor he ultimately opposed comprehensive sex education. Reliable sources:
“
Romney was criticized by Massachusetts pro-choice groups when he began to push an abstinence-heavy focus on sex education. Still, his spokesman said then that he still backed a "comprehensive" approach on teaching public school kids about sex.
What happened here is that federal money was being offered for abstinence education, and so the state could not spend that money on other sex education. But the state could spend its own money on other types of sex ed, and Romney never opposed that. So, I fail to see how his position or emphasis on this became more conservative than it was previously. What I do see is a concerted media attempt to create a narrative, but that doesn't mean we should assiduously avoid presenting reliably published information that contradicts or detracts from the narrative.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I've modified the text to say "some aspects of abstinence-only sex education," and I've moved the text explicating this to a Note, along with the above cite and a couple more. Why was this a conservative shift? The abstinence only addition would alter the existing balance of the comprehensive education. Furthermore, the free (to the state) funding for it would make it attractive for financially stressed local districts to ditch the comprehensive programs and use the money elsewhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Overkill
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This article includes the following sentence: "Romney's position on some other social issues, such as abortion rights, abstinence-only sex education, and therapeutic cloning, also evolved into a more conservative stance during his time as governor."
It then includes this sentence: "Romney's position or choice of emphasis on certain social issues, including abortion, abstinence-only sex education, therapeutic cloning, and gay rights, evolved into a more conservative stance during his time as governor."
We should pick one and remove the other, to avoid redundancy and the appearance of hammering away at alleged flip-flopping. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the first sentence. The second sentence remains in the section on political positions, which seems like the best place for it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been meaning to do something about this. In general, issues that became big in a person's role as an officeholder should be discussed in that section (same-sex marriage is obviously one for Romney), while those that he was mostly just voicing his views on and that had no material effect in his governorship belong in the political positions section. Some big-profile, impactful items tend to end in both. Governorship of Mitt Romney shows that he vetoed a bill each regarding abortion and stem cell research and doesn't say anything about abstinence. I agree, the virtual duplication was bad, but I'm not sure that eliminating abortion and cloning completely from the gubernatorial section is the best solution. Will think about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the detailed Notes entries I've added in an attempt to better describe some of the nuances of his stand on these social issues, I guess I'm now okay with not mentioning them in the governorship section. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Stance on cloning
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This article presently says: "Romney's position on ... therapeutic cloning, also evolved into a more conservative stance during his time as governor." That's incorrect, IMHO. Per the cited source:
“
[Romney said in 2005 that] therapeutic cloning would “cross the line of ethical conduct”….As a candidate for governor, Romney supported stem cell research but refused to take a stand on the cloning procedure, which is one way to create embryonic stem cells.
”
Link. So, it appears that Romney never supported therapeutic cloning.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
His position changed from unspecified to against. This NYT story from the time says that his 2005 stance was viewed in the context of his national ambitions. This Slate story shows some of the battle back and forth over it and different media portrayals. This other NYT story and the Slate piece talk about his radio ad on the subject, which was a bit heavy on the rhetoric. Again, it's not the position so much as the impression about why he was doing it. Will keep looking at this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
See this Boston Globe story which is the best account I think of his views on stem cell research. There was a shift from 2002 (supports stem cell research broadly and would lobby Bush) to 2005 (middle ground, now opposing therapeutic cloning) to 2007 (now also supports Bush ban on federal funding). This last part has been in the Political Positions article but I didn't have it in here. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the text to "some aspects of stem cell research," and I've moved the text explicating this (including the 2007 shift) to a Note, and added the above cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Flip-flopping in lead
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Generally speaking, I think it would be best to mention in the lead that he changed positions on abortion, and to leave the other alleged changes for the political positions section. It seems like if Romney departs from the script of Groundhog Day (film) then the media jumps on the lack of precise repetition. While we need to obediently include the media narrative in the body of this article, the most notable and unambiguous change was on abortion, so I think the lead should only cover the abortion change, and leave the rest for later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagree completely. If the only thing he'd ever changed his mind on was abortion, he'd get a pass. It's the totality of all of it, both position changes and emphasis changes and rhetoric and the perception that he's remade his political persona. And don't be paranoid on behalf of Romney; all politicians get pounded on for this kind of thing. But it sticks to some and not to others; that's one of the characteristics that defines how successful politicians are. One of the turning points of Hillary's campaign was when she got caught taking two different positions on NY State driver's licenses for immigrants, as unimportant an issue for a presidential candidate as you can imagine, but it brought back images of Clintonism and coincided with an Obama surge. And I've already commented on Kerry above. CBS News ran a Bush top ten flip flops list and a similar list for Kerry in 2004. It stuck to Kerry but it didn't stick to W. This is life in the big city. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
(undent)Well I emphatically disagree, and would like to hear what others think. To make it easy for everyone, here's what the lead says now:
“
While governor, his political positions or rhetorical emphasis shifted more towards American conservatism in several areas, though his positions on many issues remained consistent; this process coincided and continued with Romney becoming a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
”
The shift on abortion was huge, and belongs in the lead. The stuff in the lead now is weaselly and vague and does not identify any issues. The issues that it alludes to are almost completely nickel and dime, and can be covered later in the article. Seriously, the fact that he didn't have a position on an issue, and then took a position, does not in itself signify anything other than that he's like every other person on the planet. It's not a matter of paranoia on my part, but rather a matter of writing an NPOV article that's not weaselly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the problem was tying the shift to his governorship. I've changed the lead to cover his whole career:
"During the course of his political career, his positions or rhetorical emphasis shifted more towards American conservatism in several areas, though his stance on many issues remained consistent; this process culminated with Romney becoming a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election."
Do you agree that there was a big change between the Mitt of 1994 (including his having been an independent and voting for Tsongas, as well as his statements in that campaign on things other than just abortion, such as disdain for NRA, more for gay rights than Kennedy, view of Reagan, etc) and the Mitt of 2007? I also think this formulation would match what JamesMLane requested above, which is what kicked off this whole process. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That's somewhat better. Note Reagan started off as a Democrat campaigning for Truman. I'm not sure Reagan's shift culminated in anything particular. He used to say that he didn't leave the Democrats but rather the Democrats left him. Maybe the same is true of Romney to some extent. Anyway, I'd probably change the semicolon to a period in your sentence (thus splitting the sentence in two), and rephrase accordingly. But thanks for trying to address the concern expressed above. I doubt that Romney switched from independent to Republican so he could succeed in Massachusetts politics! Or so he could culminate with a presidential win.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
NPOV in health care section
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following are problematic, taken from the health care section. Savidan 16:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
"...after a business executive told him at the start of his term that doing so would be the best way he could help people." Is it being claimed that a conversation with a single business executive is the sole cause of Romney pushing this issue? Get real. And this is in the first sentence on the subject no less. Any serious analysis would consider previous proposals within the state, statements made by Romney during the campaign, etc.
"...team of the state's top experts..." Top experts according to whom? I recommend such claim be dropped, but at the very least claims of this type must be attributed.
"...set of proposals more innovative and ambitious than incremental ones from the Democratic legislature." It is rarely the case that 'more innovative and ambitiuos' is npov in an article about politics. This is not an exception.
Thanks very much for the comments, especially their specificity.
Regarding the first item, I've added a second cite on the business executive's comments being a key. But I've also added something that I meant to but forgot to put in before, which is that the whole process was driven by a threatened loss in Medicaid funding from the feds unless the number of uninsured was reduced. I've also added some of Romney's initial thinking about deciding that extending coverage to everyone was the way to crack this nut. I've added that he did not propose any of this during the campaign. I don't know about previous proposals within the state, my guess would be that he didn't pay much attention to them.
Regarding the second item, I've replaced "team of the state's top experts" with "team of consultants from different political backgrounds".
Regarding the third item, my formulation was too brief and didn't fully reflect what happened. I've rewritten it as "a set of innovative proposals more ambitious than an incremental one from the Massachusetts Senate and more acceptable to him than one from the Massachusetts House of Representatives that incorporated a new payroll tax." That the proposals were innovative is without doubt, since the state was the first in the nation to do this; and the word "innovative" is explicitly used by a couple of the sources. And a couple of sources also describe the Mass Senate as having a less ambitious, incremental approach, so saying that is accurate (indeed, the Dem leader of the Senate fought with the Dem leader of the House on this issue). However the Mass House did apparently propose a universal scheme as well, but it relied upon a new tax that Romney wasn't going to consider. The new wording conveys all this much more accurately than the old, so thanks for pointing this out.
Hopefully these changes will address your concerns. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
GA Review
Latest comment: 13 years ago60 comments5 people in discussion
My concern with MOS is in "Words to avoid" with this phrase in section 1: "George Romney was a popular governor." If this is based on the fact that he was reelected twice, it might be best to let that fact speak for itself.
In the paragraph about the 1994 campaign against Ted Kennedy, the article asserts that Kennedy "was more vulnerable than usual" because of the Republican resurgence and the William Kennedy Smith trial. I checked the Washington Post reference, and I couldn't find where those factors were cited by Ruth Marcus as factor's for Kennedy's vulnerability. I couldn't check the Boston Globe source because it was behind a paywall and ProQuest did not have that article.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article, at the time of review, contains about 50 to 60 kilobytes of prose. It is too long. The biography sections seem to be perfect candidates for article splitting and coverage in the summary style.
The biography paragraphs have relatively few paragraphs. Do you know of any suitable images that could go in the section? (The ones that are already there look fine to me.)
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article is placed on hold to address the concerns above, especially article length. This article was reviewed March 3, 2011; it will be reexamined in seven days, on March 10, 2011 for compliance with the criteria.
Thanks very much for the review and your comments.
Regarding the 1b point, I have changed "George Romney was a popular governor who was elected for three two-year terms; ..." to "George Romney was re-elected twice; ..." What I had wasn't even correct, because his third term was for four years (although he resigned after two to become Secretary of HUD).
Regarding the 2c point, the Boston Globe article is not behind a paywall for me ... I wonder why the difference. Anyway, this whole installment of their series on Kennedy talks about the troubles in his private life in the late 1980s through 1991 and the Palm Beach case. Then it talks about his marriage to Victoria Reggie, and says "With his personal life stabilized, Kennedy still had work to do to restore his political life." and "Kennedy's early 20-point lead had shrunk to practically zero. The 25th anniversary of Chappaquiddick had been widely noted. Joan Kennedy was seeking a new divorce settlement. Old demons were proving hard to escape." and "Now, with Republicans across the country poised to blow away the Democrats ...", all of which support the article text in question. But I've also added this AP story from July 1994 as a contemporaneous source, that should be freely available and that covers much of the same ground.
Regarding the 6b point, I would love to have some images of Romney in the earlier biographical sections. But I (and other editors before me) haven't found any that are free or public domain from before when he was governor. (The Governorship of Mitt Romney article does have a few extra from that period.) If you look at Mitt Romney in Commons, the vast majority of free images of him are from his previous run for president in 2007–2008. I am hoping somebody will have a print photo from the 1994 campaign that they scan in and add, but it hasn't happened yet ...
Regarding the 3b point about article length, I understand your perspective but I have to respectfully disagree. The article is currently, per the User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js tool, 54 kB (8913 words) "readable prose size". That's clearly within the usual WP:SIZE guidelines of 60 kB and 10,000 words, and still will be even after a "2012 presidential campaign" section is added. Furthermore, the WP:SIZE limits are just guidance, not hard-and-fast limits, and the trend for GA/FA-level articles has been for them often to be longer. If you look at User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, there are nearly 100 current FA articles longer than the 60 kB point (including seven over 90 kB!) and nearly 200 FA articles that are greater than or equal to the current Romney article in size. Moreover, biographical subarticles per the summary style don't work. By this I mean they get very, very small readership. For example, in February 2011, Sarah Palin got 187,211 views while Early political career of Sarah Palin got only 428. John McCain got 75,838 views while House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 got 621. I could quote many more stats like these and have on many other Talk pages – regardless of subject or time period, biographical subarticles have a 100:1 readership ratio or worse compared with main articles. In addition, biographical subarticles represent a lot of extra writing and maintenance work on the part of editors. Material has to be added or removed in sync with the main article, deadlinks have to be resolved twice, and so forth. Many editors ignore the subarticles – Talk:Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton is empty, for example, meaning extra work for the editors that do pay attention to them. In sum, I don't think biographical subarticles are worthwhile for American politicians, except for presidential campaign subarticles and maybe for the occasional governorship or similar subarticle (see Category:Tenures in political office by individual for the lot), until and unless they are elected president. Then all bets are off and subarticles do indeed need to come into being, to create space for the bulk of the article which will cover their presidency. So if Romney gets elected, then this article should be broken up, but until then I think the current size is appropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Article length
I have read your statement. My perspective comes from when I was reviewing the article. The biographical and business sections just seemed to be too lengthy compared to the paragraphs on his political career. (An estimate I made says that about one third of the prose is in the pre-political sections of the article.) My concern is that those sections seem to be giving inordinate detail completely out of proportion to their coverage in sources about Mitt Romney. The content is well-sourced, and so it should not be deleted. Rather, the important points (as determined by the sources) should remain in the article, while details can go in a sub-article. While the article's size does not imply that it must be split, its size is large enough to consider a split. Based on my reading of the article, I believe a split is in order for the above reasons.
You raised two concerns about splitting the article. The first is a lack of use or participation. It is not surprising that biographical sub-articles will have fewer views than the main articles. But honestly, the main article is more likely to serve a reader generally interested in the subject of the article. Only those who specifically want to know more about Palin's early political career need to examine the sub-article. People can get the basic facts about her early political career through the shortened paragraphs in the main article. As for participation, I don't see this as much of an issue. The talk page of an article I've been working on, Talk:Legends of the Hidden Temple, has not had any talk page discussions since September 2008 (apart from a second GA nomination and review), and I estimate the article has about 12000 monthly page views. It doesn't surprise me at all that a subarticle viewed by far fewer users wouldn't have any talk page discussions. Also, you raised the concern about having to duplicate the effort in updating the article. This is a relatively minor concern; I trust the regular editors who can summarize an entire article in a lead paragraph can also summarize subarticles within the main article and keep those in sync.
As part of criterion 3, I am required, as a reviewer, to judge whether the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail." The article suggests adopting and properly using summary style as a means of fulfilling this criterion. Since, in my judgment, the article goes into unnecessary detail about Mitt Romney's pre-political life and career, I would (unfortunately) have to fail this article in its current state. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, needless to say, I have a different view :-) First, this is meant to be a biography of the person's whole life, not just the thing they are doing now. It's quite possible that if Romney loses this presidential election, he'll be viewed in the final analysis as more of a business/executive figure than a political one. He didn't hold a political office until age 55; I don't see spending a third of the article on his life up until age 55 as being unreasonable. And these things are important especially for someone who later becomes a politician – think of all the ink that's been spilled about Obama's unusual childhood or GWB's wandering years. And they are important in Romney's eyes too, as much of his campaign pitches have always been about how his successes in business and the Olympics would prepare him for performing in political office. Regarding "inordinate detail completely out of proportion to their coverage in sources about Mitt Romney", since there are no real biographies of Romney out, the gold standard is the seven-part Boston Globe series on him. Here's how the parts break down:
1 - early life to middle of France mission, with long sidebar on mission and sidebar on draft
2 - more mission, family's historical background (which is covered in the George W. Romney article, not here)
3 - business career at Bain & Company and Bain Capital, with sidebar on Harvard years
4 - family life (a lot of which is not covered here), 1994 campaign
5 - Olympics head, with sidebar on connections for campaign fundraising
6 - campaign for governor, Governor
7 - Governor, start of campaign for president
So the BG series is about two-thirds or more (depending upon exactly how you count it) about his pre-political career. Of course, if they were redoing it now, they'd have a part 8 about the 2008 campaign and maybe a part 9 about the period since then. But still it would be at least half about his pre-political career. Nor is the BG alone. The New York Times has written at least four long profiles about his early life, business, and Olympics years, see current footnotes 20, 36, 38, and 63. Indeed, I used the weighting from these sources to help determine how much relative space to give things. So in summary I don't think the amount of space given to his pre-political career is unwarranted.
Will respond to your other points in the morning. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding viewership, yes clearly a main article will always more views than a subarticle. But it would maybe be on a 10:1 scale, not the 100:1 to 500:1 ratio that we see with biographical subarticles. One cause is that the {{main}} links, usually appearing between section headers and text, aren't very visible to users. But the main cause is that search engines don't find the biographical subarticles. They do for other examples of summary style; for example, Google (and Bing) searches for <world war ii>, <d-day>, and <omaha beach> all return the associated WP article in the top or second spot of results. Same with your example of <legends of the hidden temple>. Now let's say someone wants to know more about John McCain's time in Vietnam as a naval aviator and POW. A Google search for <john mccain vietnam> (angle brackets to indicate not quoted) returns the John McCain article first ... but it really should return Early life and military career of John McCain, an FA article that includes far more detail about this subject than the main article ... but that isn't there until the second page of hits, which few users will bother to look at. (Bing does the same with the main article, but is somewhat better with the subarticle, putting it at the bottom of the first page of hits.) Now let's say someone wants the real deal on Sarah Palin's time as a politician in Wasilla, one of the more controversial periods of her life. The Google search for <sarah palin wasilla> again puts Sarah Palin at the top, but Early political career of Sarah Palin, which has a much more thorough description of the topic, never appears at all (at least not in the first sixteen pages of hits that I checked). No wonder it only gets a handful of readers. (Bing, on the other hand, does much better, placing the subarticle second ... go Bing! I use it a lot because I love its main page images, but it still has a small share of the search pie compared to Google.)
Regarding the duplicative effort of maintaining main and subarticles, I know whereof I speak :-) When the John McCain article got broken up into pieces four years ago, following a discussion similar to this one, I took the biographical subarticles very seriously. I took one to FA and two to GA, which I think is more than anyone else has done with biographical subarticles (although it's a little hard to check). The readership has been small – Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present got a measly 416 views last month, for example – and it is rarely edited by anyone other than me and the bots. I constantly have to take edits to the main article and move them to the subarticle. My example of the talk page for Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton wasn't meant to say that Talk page activity can serve as a proxy for viewership, because you're right that it doesn't ... but I know the viewership of the page (another one that I'm the only editor on) is low by that stats tool, 516 views last month compared to 134,563 for the main article. That's a 260:1 ratio, very typical. It's a lot of work to maintain parallel articles like this, for very little payback.
Another way of looking at this is that anything moved out of this article into an "early life and business career of Mitt Romney" article would be effectively deleted for 99.5% of the readers. If I thought there there was anything in the current article that is so unimportant that only 1 in 200 readers should see it, I never would have put it in this article to begin with! If you can point out some of the things that you think are that unimportant, I will be glad to give them a fresh second look and re-evaluate.
Finally, I will say that based upon a lot of experience I've had doing this, length is a friend of stable articles for controversial political subjects. With shorter articles, you get a lot of "How dare the article not mention A! It must be biased!" and "You include B but not C! You must be biased!" type criticisms. When you include A, B, and C, everybody gets to see what they expect to be there (obviously, A B and C all have to be well-sourced and handled fairly). If you go back over the Talk:Mitt Romney archives, you'll see that the article is a lot more stable and peaceful than it was at the comparable time four years ago in the previous election cycle. (The recent flurry of Talk page discussions, while it may look like a lot, has mostly been focused on just the first paragraph of the lead and a couple of paragraphs in the "Political positions" section; the rest of the article has been very stable.) A similar calmedness can be seen at the Talk:Ted Kennedy archives after I rewrote that whole article, even though the revised article got its highest viewership ever when he died. There are likely several reasons for the relative calm in these cases, but I would strongly argue that the more comprehensive nature of the articles now compared to then is one of them. I don't want to lose that ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the key point here is that he did not run for political office until 47 years old, and he had a successful life and business career before that. So, it seems appropriate to devote as much space to it as this article currently does. In other words, I don't think the article is unfocused in that respect quite yet. But, if the sections on the pre-political career get longer, I would support starting a sub-article and summarizing it here. Maybe call the sub-article "Early life and business career of Mitt Romney".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
And he went back to his business career for 8 years after that, until assuming his first political office at age 55. In any case, I have no intentions of lengthening any of the pre-political sections. If some significant new biographical material came out I'd have to look at it, but I think that unlikely given that the press pretty thoroughly reported those parts of Romney's life back in 2007. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I do see your point about Romney's business career. Its coverage certainly seems appropriate. However, I still think the "Youth and early education" and "Missionary work, later education, marriage, and family" sections are overly lengthy and could be consolidated with the details spun off into another article. Is it really necessary to have twelve paragraphs about those two subjects (about as much as his 2008 Presidential campaign bid), including paragraphs entirely devoted to childhood pranks of Romney and Romney's time at BYU? Thus, I still don't think the article meets the focused coverage criterion. If you want, I can have a second reviewer examine the issue. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The high school paragraph just had one (admittedly longish) sentence about pranks; the rest is about academics, athletics and girlfriends, which are pretty standard subjects to cover in a biography. I've moved the specifics about the pranks into an existing 'Note', to reduce the main text, and I've moved what's left into the middle of the paragraph, so that it doesn't look like the topic sentence.
I disagree about the BYU material. The late 1960s were one of the most politically and socially turbulent times in American history, and a reader can easily draw a direct line from Romney's experiences during them (sheltered at home, challenged with hostility abroad) to his strong emphasis on American exceptionalism today. Many other students of that era took a different path, and would never again view America quite the same. Ditto the draft; this was a crucible of the time, and every WP political bio of people from this period details what the subject did regarding the draft (see the articles on Joe Biden, Rudy Giuliani, Dick Cheney, etc).
These sections may be a bit longer than in comparable GA/FA-level articles, but I believe that is due to his having had a very prominent father (thus ending up doing campaign and other work that most subjects don't during their youth; the relationship with his father is also a theme that runs throughout the article) and due to his missionary experience (which for many Mormons is both a very difficult and very defining time in their lives; and Romney's mission was especially eventful). Again, the Boston Globe and New York Times and other sources give a lot of weight to this period, and I don't think it's unreasonable for this article too. Also note that what many WP articles describe in a separate "Personal life" section further down has been included in these two sections early on, because in Romney's case his story doesn't make sense unless chronologically integrated. So I don't think that the depth of coverage here is that unusual for GA/FA-levels, just that there's somewhat more to cover.
As for bringing in a second opinion, that's your decision as reviewer, but I certainly wouldn't object. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I decided to take another look at this question, by a comparative approach. I looked at several other articles, all of which are GA and all of which are on a comparable subject (BLP of American politicians who ran for president but didn't make it) and which are written at a roughly comparable level of detail overall. I added in GA articles for a longtime member of Congress and a Supreme Court justice just for a little variety. I then measured the size of those articles' text that was equivalent to the two Mitt Romney sections still in question, that is, the text covering early life through end of education as well as that covering marriage and beginning of family. (I measured the Mitt article from before my last edit that moved out some of the pranks material, so as to measure what you have been objecting to.) The results are all from using the Dr pda/prosesize.js tool against a "show preview" of the edited portion of an article. Here are the results:
So there are a lot of GA articles that have lengthy sections for this part of a person's life. None of them has an "Early life of ..." subarticle and I still don't want to create one for this article for all the reasons I stated before. However, I have to concede that the Mitt Romney text for this portion is longer than all the others, and there's no good reason for that. I believe it should be at the upper end of the range, because of the 'father' and 'missionary' factors I described above, but it really shouldn't be beyond the range.
So, if I can edit these two sections down until they are in the 1300–1400-ish words area instead of 1800 words, would that be sufficient to resolve your objection to this aspect of the article? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan. Is that something you can do right away WTR, or would you recommend another GAN later? If the former, then go ahead. I don't know what Jaguar3's opinion will be, but I expect Jaguar3 would be able to decide more easily if he sees the results.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm doing it now. The goal is to achieve success on this GAN, not do another one. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
If you can find 400 or so words to cut that don't compromise the coverage of Romney's early life, then I think that such changes would certainly satisfy the criterion. Otherwise, if it's impossible to cut such an amount of text without glossing over important events in Romney's early life, I think that a subarticle is warranted. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I have now taken the size of the first two sections down to 8558 B (1415 words) "readable prose size". Nothing of real substance was removed altogether; instead, a couple of items were moved into Notes (especially the details of the auto accident), a couple of items were relocated to a section later in the article and given a new context; and a lot of reductions in excess verbiage were made. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It should be easy enough to phrase the first paragraph without the word "politician" which often has negative connotations (and is not used in the Obama lead, for example). According to one prominent online dictionary, the word often means "a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As I noted during GA1, several FAs use the word politician in the lead sentence (e.g., Wendell H. Ford, Terry Sanford, Sam Loxton, Richard Cordray), and in this case, I think its use is critical since his work over the past decade has been more that of a politician (see wikt:politician) than a businessman. I also don't like the choppiness of having an entire sentence to convey his party status: "He is a member of the Republican Party."
It seems like the first sentence of the lead keeps changing, so I'm hoping we can get consensus here (quickly, given GAN) regarding something that can stick for a while. Here is what I suggest:
As I mentioned above, the word "politician" is often pejorative (I linked to a dictionary). FWIW, Romney himself recently did an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN saying that he's not a politician. In any event, the fact that he's a political figure, or a politician, or whatever, should be abundantly clear from the fact that he was a governor, a past presidential candidate, and a likely future presidential candidate. So, the word "politician" is somewhat superfluous here, and not critical at all.
If we don't want the party affiliation to be in a separate sentence, then we could do this: "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman, and a Republican who was the 70th Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. He was a candidate in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, and is a likely candidate in the 2012 presidential election."
I want some kind of noun to describe his career in politics (for syntax' sake), but there appears to be a problem with "politician," so let's compromise with "political figure." Also, I find some comma insertion flawed; i.e., you should only separate independent clauses with commas (see compound sentence).
I don't see "political figure" anywhere in that source, and the suggested counterproposals ("leading," "prominent") are POV. Can you please compromise -- "political figure." If not, what do others think? —Eustresstalk 00:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the URL I gave, the last two words in the URL are "political figure". I doubt that "leading figure" is POV, and certainly not "prominent figure". The same is true of someone like Harry Reid or Hillary Clinton or even James Carville; they're all prominent figures in the Democratic Party. If you want another adjective, try "influential figure".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I'm okay with "politician", no "politician", or "political figure". I see this as a distinction without a difference, and I think few if any readers will even realize which formulation we've chosen much less be influenced by it. I am not okay with "leading [or prominent] figure in the Republican Party", because I think that's debatable on factual grounds (Romney has never had a party leadership position and I can think of twenty Republicans more identified as Republicans than him). But I have to say that I think Anythingyouwant's chief argument is kind of silly; "lawyer" also has a bad connotation to much of the public, but does that mean the word should be taken out of the first sentence of the Alan Dershowitz, David Boies, et al articles? In terms of the overall first paragraph phrasing, I like Eustress's second proposal above. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, let's go with Eustress's second phrasing (political figure). Incidentally, Romney is a lawyer, but that should not go in the first paragraph for obvious reasons. Also, I doubt there are dictionaries that explicitly give a disparaging definition for "lawyer" as they do for "politician". Haley Barbour says he hit the trifecta: lawyer, lobbyist, AND politician.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change. I think it's redundant and a little odd to refer to him in the first paragraph as a "political figure", so I'll reserve the right to support a change later on. One definition of the word "political" is "Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives".[6] I don't think it's appropriate or necessary for Wikipedia to include connotations like that, but the current language seems slightly better than slapping the "politician" label on him in the lead paragraph.
Eustress and WTR, isn't there any adjective that would be an acceptable substitute for "political"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
"Political" as an adjective often has a pejorative meaning for those who aren't politicians, as in "I can't stand my boss, he's so political" or "She turned the PTA into something totally political". Thus, our American Heritage Dictionary (Second College Edition, from 1982) entry for "politician" separates out the "One who holds or seeks political office" definition from the "One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by cunning or dishonest means" definition. The one you quoted at the beginning conflates these, I think unwisely. In any case, Romney could fairly claim not to be a politician through 2002, even with his run for office in 1994. But since then, he's been a full-time politician. Especially in the last three years, when instead of getting a job back in the business world or elsewhere, he essentially has just had the job of doing what it takes to prepare to run for president again. But back to my basic point, readers are going to gloss over the word "politician" to focus on the high-value facts of "governor", "ran for president", "running again". I've read scores of political BLP leads on WP and I couldn't tell you whether a single one has "politician" in the first sentence or not, even for the articles I've worked on! Wasted Time R (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I think this matter is now resolved. —Eustresstalk 21:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I've commented before that this article is strongly titled pro-Romney. This horror about referring to him as a "politician" because some people might consider it pejorative is another example. The term is a very common way of referring to "political figures" who aren't currently holding public office. Other unsuccessful 2008 candidates not now in office, such as Chris Dodd, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson, find this alleged pejorative in the opening sections of their articles. Only when it comes to Romney do Wikipedia editors seem to think that we must bend over backward not to say anything that might give anyone the slightest negative impression of him.
Eustress, I do not agree with your concluding comment. The matter is not resolved. To treat Romney so much more solicitously than we treat other politicians is not NPOV. JamesMLanetc 16:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Last time I checked, the lead of Barack Obama does not pejoratively refer to him as a politician or as political. And it would be redundant given everything else the Obama lead says. Why this article's lead does so is beyond me, and it's even more beyond me why this aspect of the present lead needs to be further accentuated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
@James You appear to be assuming a lot of things. Do you have any Wikpipedia-valid, direct issue with the consensus; i.e., the use of "political figure?" —Eustresstalk 17:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant: If you will pardon me for quoting myself, "The term is a very common way of referring to 'political figures' who aren't currently holding public office." Last time I checked, Barack Obama was a current public officeholder. If you think that comparisons with other articles are one appropriate consideration, then you should compare apples with apples and treat Romney like the out-of-office Democratic candidates that I listed and like the other people that Eustress listed. Furthermore, it is question-begging to say "pejoratively refer to him as a politician or as political" when the issue is whether "politician" is indeed pejorative. I and others see it as a neutral description. Some people may dislike politicians, but as Wasted pointed out, some people dislike lawyers (just as some dislike Republicans and some dislike Mormons). We can't make our primary focus the effort to shield Romney from any negative opinion that some reader might draw from the facts. (The same would apply to "lawyer", i.e., the possibility of negative reactions is not a reason to exclude or downplay the information. The difference is that Romney, although holding a law degree, hasn't practiced law, so that's not an important part of his bio. As Wasted pointed out, however, being a politician has been his primary activity for the last few years.)
Eustress: I was assuming that Anythingyouwant's stated concerns and motives were his actual concerns and motives. His argument was that "politician" was pejorative, and had "negative connotations" -- in other words, his concern is that some readers might think less favorably of Romney if he were described this way. I took issue with that emphasis. Frankly, I don't see how this is within shouting distance of a violation of WP:AGF. Furthermore, I noted that this latest fuss is part of a general pro-Romney slant in the article. Neutrality is certainly a Wikipedia-valid consideration, and treating Romney like other bio subjects who are similarly situated is one aspect of neutrality.
This beginning from Eustress near the top of the thread is excellent: "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and Republican politician...." That immediately puts the reader in the picture about the highlights of Romney's bio, so that the reader can decide whether to continue. Using the familiar term "politician" is the approach that's most helpful to the reader. To me, at least, that's also a Wikipedia-valid issue. JamesMLanetc 20:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question: Do you have any issue with the consensus; i.e., the use of "political figure?" It appears that you, like me, feel that "politician" and "political figure" are essentially interchangeable. If another editor has a problem with one of the terms, let's just be use the other one and move on. We are charged to not disrupt Wikipedia solely to make a point. Thank you for your consideration. —Eustresstalk 20:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
James, my dictionary doesn't suggest that the words in question are any less applicable to an officeholder.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Across the board would mean Democrats (e.g. Obama) as well as Republicans. And it means present presidential maybe-contenders as well as other prominent political figures.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I think Obama is a red herring. Checking back through McKinley, none of the presidential articles (*) have "politician" in the first sentence; they just state that so-and-so was the nth president and maybe include something else almost equally major (Taft chief justice, Ike 5-star general). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (*) Of course, in WP nothing is ever fully consistent: GHWB said "politician". I've removed it.
While you may wish to make this matter into a red herring by editing the GHWB article, there is no principled reason to use "politician" or "political" in connection with Romney but not Obama, AFAIK.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
To say that there's no principled reason for this distinction is to treat editorial judgment as equivalent to counting beans. It's like saying that there's no principled reason for omitting "attorney" from the first graf of the Obama bio, given that it's in the first sentence of the Oscar Goodman bio. Both Obama and Goodman got law degrees, practiced law for a while, and were elected to public office. The difference is that, in Goodman's case, it's a much bigger part of his bio, because it's more of his life and more related to his prominence, and also because being a mayor doesn't overshadow a legal career the way being President does. In Romney's case, he doesn't have a Presidential-level bio highlight that so thoroughly overshadows his principal occupation of the last few years, namely running for office or preparing to run. That's why "politician" (but not "attorney") belongs in his introductory description but not Obama's. Or do you think that Obama and Romney should both be prominently described as lawyers, there being no principled reason to treat them and Goodman differently? JamesMLanetc 05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
(Undent) Neither the Romney nor Obama articles should be changed to emphasize or deemphasize that they're lawyers. And neither article should say in the first paragraph whether they're "political" or not. The Romney lead already says that he's been running for office or preparing to run, so saying that he's political adds nothing. But it is slightly less pejorative than saying in the first sentence that he's a politician.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Eustress, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I said that I didn't consider the matter resolved. I pointed out that numerous people who are similarly situated are described as "politician", that Romney is not, that the stated reason for the difference is the fear that "politician" might be pejorative and would have "negative connotations" for Romney, and that I thought NPOV called for treating similarly situated bio subjects similarly unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise. So, yes, I have an issue with the use of "political figure". (Is there a consensus? Something like two in favor, one acquiescing, one opposed -- bickering about whether to use that word doesn't matter, given that even a clear consensus can later be reversed.) Wasted's typically thorough research has strengthened my opposition.
You're right that there's some interchangeability. To my mind, however, "political figure" moves somewhat away from electoral politics. You could plausibly use "political figure" for someone who'd never run for elective office -- an advisor like Karl Rove, or a party leader like Joe Andrew, or possibly even a political appointee like Robert Gates. This term obscures the fact that Romney, like any number of other people cited by Wasted and myself, was the actual candidate.
Because the term is somewhat ambiguous, we might as well help the reader out by wikilinking out. Oh my -- the wikilink redirects to "Politician", thus bolstering your argument for interchangeability. I'll go ahead and wikilink it while I wait for an explanation of why Romney is treated differently from so many other politicians. (For my taste, the explanation should take a form other than "We don't want people to form a negative opinion about Romney.") JamesMLanetc 05:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I decided to get more data points. I looked at all 50 articles for the currently sitting U.S. governors. Of them, 20 have "politician" in the first sentence and 30 do not. I found no pattern as to how the decision was made – it doesn't seem to correlate to party, length of service, length of career in politics, other offices held, or anything else. I also saw no signs that when it was used it was intended as a pejorative. It was simply that some editors thought the right way to start the article was to state occupation and position (some of the uses combined "politician" with "laywer", "businessman", "doctor", whatever) and some thought the right way was just to state position.
I looked at the articles for the last 10 Speakers of the House: 7 have "politician", 3 don't. Didn't know what to make of that. I looked at the articles for British prime ministers, going back to Churchill: 10 use "politician", 3 don't. That kind of surprised me, since it's the opposite of U.S. presidents. Maybe it's due to the parliamentary system having a different feel to it.
I decided to look at rest of the presidents. I found that Arthur and Pierce also used "politician" in the first sentence and, despite my innocuous edit for consistency having apparently triggered a minor edit war at GHWB last night, decided to change them, again for consistency at least among presidents. I found that William Henry Harrison also used "politician", but decided to leave that one alone as a special case, since he was in office for such a short time. Then when I got back to the founders, the whole game changed, since being president wasn't the most important thing they did. So a use in a first sentence like "James Madison, Jr. (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836) was an American politician and political philosopher who served as the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817) and is considered one of the Founding Fathers of the United States." makes sense to me.
So what did I learn from all this? That I can see no clear rationale why "politician" is used or not, but that when it is used, it clearly isn't meant as a pejorative. And that WP is a marvel of inconsistency; in addition to this usage difference, I saw vast differences in the rest of first paragraphs and in the size and nature of contents of lead sections altogether. And I didn't see a single use of "political figure" that I can remember, so the Romney article is now blazing a new path ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Well WTR, you've deliberately scoured Wikipedia to make sure that all the president articles use the same language as the Obama article, but different language from the Romney language. If you have a change of heart, and edit the Romney article as you have edited the president articles, then that would be an improvement. Otherwise, please let's leave this aspect of the Romney article as-is (it's no more unusual than giving equal weight to changes of position versus changes in rhetorical emphasis).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Anything, I don't understand why you have this Obama Obama Obama fixation. You seem to think that the only relevant comparison is that between Romney and Obama, and that hundreds of other Wikipedia bios are utterly irrelevant. Even as to those two, what principle are you applying? Do you contend that, since both ran for elective office, the term "politician" must be applied to both or to neither, with no room for editorial judgment? Crafting an informative introduction isn't so mechanistic. Even if we omit unsuccessful presidential candidates like Romney and look just at modern Presidents, Bill Clinton spent a few years teaching law and after that was holding office or running for office just about continuously; Dwight D. Eisenhower never ran for anything until his Presidential campaign. Surely it would be one reasonable view to say that Clinton was a politician and Eisenhower wasn't. Is there some similar editorial judgment involved on your part in this case, something beyond the fear that some readers would think less of Romney if he were treated the same way as Dodd, Edwards, Gingrich, and Palin? JamesMLanetc 05:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a "fixation". See my previous comments above for more complete responses.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The more complete response I was looking for would be one in which you considered bio subjects other than Romney and Obama, or one in which you answered any of several specific questions that I've posed. JamesMLanetc 21:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I've already discussed generally applicable dictionary definitions. And, despite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I have also discussed other Wikipedia biographies such as that for GHWB. James, your questions were based on the faulty assumption that I think the only relevant comparison is between Romney and Obama. Let's let the dead horse rest in peace, okay? Please? I could name dozens of present and former and possible candidates whose Wiki bios don't begin by calling them a "politician", and dozens that do. The lead paragraph of the present article is entirely accurate the way it is, and it is the result of discussion and compromise. If you think that using the term "political figure" instead of "politician" slants the article toward Romney, please consider that using the term "political figure" instead of "asshole" could also be construed as slanting the article toward Romney. This discussion has become long, and I hope we can bring it in for a landing, before we run out of fuel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Slanted?
James, I'm concerned about your comments above that there is a "general pro-Romney slant in the article". When you brought this up previously on the regular Talk page, it was in the context of the lead. This led to several changes, including putting the two presidential races in the first paragraph and putting his positions shift into the lead. (You also objected to going beyond "just the facts" in the lead, but that's more a stylistic/philosophical question than one of slant.)
So what still remains that is a problem in your eyes? I know that leads are ticklish and no one is ever fully happy with them, so I'm especially interested in whether you think the body of the article is slanted. If so, it'd help to have as many specific instances as possible, so that we have some concrete to work on. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we have already leaned too far to address James's concerns. That a political figure's "rhetorical emphasis" changes is trivial compared to an actual change of position. Such changes of rhetorical emphasis for other political figures are not highlighted in their Wikipedia articles as far as I know, and yet they happen all the time, based on where and when the political figure speaks. If you're speaking to a veterans' group you don't typically emphasize your position on littering, and when you address an environmental group you don't typically emphasize your position on night vision goggles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
That's not the kind of rhetorical emphasis that Romney is characterized as changing. And I generally don't care what other articles do; I'm interested in making this the best short-length (compared to book-length) biographical account of Romney in existence. In any case, the handling of Romney's position shifts is always going to be the trickiest part of this article to navigate. I'm interested in knowing whether James has objections in other areas as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There's probably no politician (other than a few diehard Libertarians or Communists) who's been completely consistent throughout his or her life. The difference is that, in Romney's case, the accusation of flip-flopping was an important criticism of him in the 2008 campaign. A goodly part of the Republican base didn't trust him, even though he was saying the right things in 2008, because of their impression that he had tacked left in earlier years when running in liberal Massachusetts. That argument is more important in his bio than in that of many others. (In fact, for the same reason, it might make sense to mention in the introductory section that Romney's presidential run was hampered by anti-Mormon prejudice. There's good evidence that that was also a significant factor.)
I find it amusing that Anythingyouwant launches a pre-emptive strike by saying that "we've" gone too far to accommodate me. (Hey, I'm part of the we!) AYW, what specific changes do you see as "leaning" at all, let alone leaning "too far"? The introductory section still has too much of a cheerleading tone. I agree that whether to put his undergraduate alma mater in the introductory section is more of a style question; I think that fact should be demoted, but its inclusion isn't related to NPOV.
Wasted, you're right that I haven't set forth much in the way of specifics. I just haven't had much free time for the last several days. Because I haven't set forth the specifics, I also haven't put the POV tag on the article. However much an article needs improvement, I consider it irresponsible to tag it without having stated specifics. On the subject of Romney's position changes, though, I'll note that the relevant passage in the body of the text begins "Romney has been consistent in many of his political positions." This sets the stage with Romney's (or his supporters') answer to the charge, and only then gets into the charge. It's not logical. It's like saying "Romney has never been accused of cheating on his taxes." We don't say that because it's not an issue. The pandering thing is an issue because of critics' charges, which should be stated first, then the response. I'd suggest rearranging that passage, to put the charge first, but, in what could be seen as a pro-Romney change, recasting the discussion in the introductory section to make it less "Romney's tacked right" and more "Romney's presidential bid was hampered by the perception among many Republican conservatives that he had tacked right." I'll see what other specifics I can develop but I don't know how much I'll be able to do in the near future. JamesMLanetc 06:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding factors leading to Romney's loss in 2008, there are several that are commonly mentioned: low name recognition, inauthenticity/position shifts, lack of warmth/feel, and being a Mormon. I haven't seen any study that tries to assess the relative weight of these; if you have, I'd be really interested to see it. I've been holding off on citing the academic papers that delve into the Mormon factor because the results I've seen so far have been depressing and I was looking for one that said it wasn't much of a factor, but clearly that's not a good reason. So I've introduced two of them into the article now, while I try to get a couple of others. But until I see something that really rings as definitive, I'm reluctant to put any of these reasons for the loss into the lead. Also, Romney didn't do that badly in the race; he effectively finished second, and certainly did better than Giuliani's and Thompson's flops.
Regarding the inclusion and placement of "Romney has been consistent in many of his political positions", this is partly the price of buying peace in the article. But in part I think it's worthwhile stating – yes, it's effectively true of virtually every politician, but since Romney has been pummeled on this aspect of his career, it bears more reminding in this article than many others. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Re 2008, I haven't reviewed any academic studies. My impression was anecdotal, from newspaper accounts and from my occasional forays into right-wing message boards. Maybe some LDS members would call me naive, but I was surprised by the extent of the anti-Mormon bigotry. Some conservatives, disparaging Romney, were describing his church as "a cult" and denying that it was a Christian denomination (or grudgingly calling it "nominally Christian"). It's obvious that the religious right is much stronger in the Republican Party now than it was when George Romney ran. I don't think he encountered this kind of hostility.
Re the treatment of the flip-flopping charge, I completely agree that the article should report how Romney and/or his supporters respond to the charge. What I'm criticizing is the stating of the response before the charge. That's not the normal way of addressing such an issue. I'm not familiar with the history here. If you mean that the only way to buy peace was to go out of our way (yet again) to avoid writing anything that might lead anyone to form a negative opinion about Romney, then we should revisit the issue and instead approach it under NPOV standards. JamesMLanetc 05:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
If you read message boards at political sites, your faith in humanity will diminish at a rapid pace! No, George Romney didn't face much hostility on the religion issue (or on the birther issue, which people would go nuts over now). 1968 was a different electoral era, for good and for bad. Were they active today, George Romney would be a man without a party and Richard Nixon might have trouble winning a single Republican primary. But put Hillary and Obama back in 1968 and they couldn't have gotten elected to anything either.
As for the article not having anything negative about Romney, I don't think you've absorbed the whole thing yet! Read the "2008 presidential campaign" and "Political positions" sections again. Look for key words like "phony" and "opportunism" and the like.
The one thing that I've consciously held back on is that all the other 2008 Republican candidates disliked-unto-hated Romney. It's colorfully described in Game Change pp. 293–294 for those reading at home, and it's surfaced again recently in this Politico story. It was a bit too gossipy and possibly dubious on BLP grounds.
PS Upon further thought, Tricky Dick would probably find a way in any era ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Wasted, I'm a lawyer. My faith in humanity was pretty much shot long ago. :) Just to clarify, I'm not saying the article has nothing negative about Romney. I'm saying that it's tilted his way. Examples: Anythingyouwant has made clear that he wants to exclude "politician" because it might give some readers an unfavorable impression; the flip-flopping thing is too important to omit but it's presented in an unusual way, one that seems to have no justification except to pacify Romney supporters by giving the pro-Romney POV undue prominence. Yes, the body of the article uses "phony" and "opportunism", but always in reporting opinions that are (properly) attributed to others. By contraast, the laudatory summaries of his career in the introductory section are stated as facts. JamesMLanetc 21:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
About "politician" I can't do anything. I am okay with all three choices, and I am convinced from my examinations of other articles that the choice to use it or not has been one of editorial happenstance rather than pejorative or pov subtext.
Regarding the unusual way of presenting the position shifts, as a lawyer you should appreciate what I did. AYW was starting to add in positions that Romney hasn't changed on, and these could literally run into the hundreds (has always been in favor of tax abatements for hi-tech startups around Boston, has always supported family farming in Western Mass., has always been for human rights in Myanmar, etc etc). So I did what anyone would in court – I stipulated that "Romney has been consistent in many of his political positions" in the article body (see the comment in the text that follows that, which explicitly says "Stipulated") so that it could focus on the exceptions that have been the subject of attention.
Regarding the tilt you see, I think to a degree this is inevitable, given the nature of the positives and negatives involved and the WP rules and BLP considerations in particular. For example, I can write
"X was the founder of a firm that became highly profitable and one of the largest such firms in the nation."
because that is an objective fact but I cannot write
"During the 2008 campaign, X was a phony."
I can't even write
"During the 2008 campaign, X was perceived as a phony."
as that would draw "who" and "weasel" tags right away. I have to write it the way I did, as you agree.
Now imagine that these outcomes were reversed. I could still write
"X was CEO of an industry-leading firm that experienced prolonged heavy losses and entered bankruptcy followed by liquidation."
because again that is an objective fact, but I could not write
"During the 2008 campaign, X was a profile in political courage."
I would have to couch the latter by reporting opinions attributed to others.
So Romney 'lucks out' by having his positives be in the first class and his negatives be in the second. But it could just as well be the other way around. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Listed
After reviewing the article's changes, it appears to satisfy the good article criteria. Thanks again to the regular contributors who spent a lot of time working on the article to help improve it. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much, and thanks for hanging in there with us ... Wasted Time R (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Right now, Template:Mitt Romney is located twice in this article, once at the bottom, and once within the Template:Mitt Romney Series. So, it would probably be appropriate to remove one of them. I plan on removing the latter, because it makes this article load kind of funny (e.g. the lead first looks squeezed before it gets widened), and it also prevents alignment of the information with the infobox. Instead of editing Template:Mitt Romney Series to remove Template:Mitt Romney, I plan on merging info into the infobox, as was done at the John McCain article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, getting rid of the two-stage load is good. But I would dump the template at the top altogether. That's only appropriate for articles, like McCain's, that have subarticles that continuously cover the person's whole life. This one doesn't; the "series" being talked about doesn't exist. Yes, there are some subarticles and some detail articles, 8 or 10 altogether depending upon how you are counting, which are linked to from the article body and the bottom template, as most articles like this do. There's no need for a top template (which only shows 4 of them in any case). I never wanted these "series" templates for Romney-like articles in the first place, but a now-retired editor (Justmeherenow) insisted on them and reverted attempts to remove. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Getting rid of the series is fine with me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Wrong picture of building in Paris
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
The pictured United Arab Emirates (UAE) building in Paris seems to be a different bulding from the one where Romney worked. You can see that it looks quite different from the one shown in the footnoted Boston Globe piece.
The building shown in this Wikipedia article is at 2 boulevard de la Tour-Maubourg, which is in the 7th arrondissement. In contrast, the cited Boston Globe piece says that the building where Romney worked was in the 16th arrondissement.
The UAE does have an embassy building in the 16th Arondissement, at 3 rue de Lota.[7][8] However, that's apparently a different address and a different building from the one shown in this Wikipedia article. French Wikipedia confirms this conclusion: the Mormon operation was at 3 rue de Lota.[9] So, I'll remove the pic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, bad job by me. I did spend time looking at the image I used versus the one in the BG photo, and decided they could well be different entrances for the same building. But I should have looked up the address of the UAE one to see if the arrondissement matched. Thanks for catching this.
I never much liked using the UAE photo in the first place, because it looked too regal; most of the quarters Romney stayed in during his mission were decidedly less glamorous. I think I need a taxpayer-funded fact-finding trip to France to properly visually document this period ...
I also have to say that I'm not a big fan of putting the BYU and Harvard images in to replace this one with. I thought a photo of Cranbrook was warranted because it doesn't look like your average high school and it illustrates Romney's affluent upbringing. Ditto something representing his mission, which is an unusual aspect of his bio. But every pol went to college; the BYU photo doesn't add much and the Harvard one isn't even of the right part of campus (it should really be of the business school, which is on the other side of the Charles). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd hate to imagine what kind of accommodations and travel-arrangements we'd get on a Wikipedia-funded trip to Paris. Maybe a container on a ship, and then a couch at the Paris Goodwill.
Anyway, I'm fir keeping the BYU and Harvard images for the time being, for several reasons. They liven up the article in a place where there aren't any photos, readers (like me) may not have been aware of the gorgeous BYU setting, Romney's article is very different from (say) McCain's in that we don't have any early-life photos, not just Romney but also his wife went to BYU, the contrasting cultural experience going from BYU to Harvard must have been dramatic, Harvard Square is shown which adequately represents the whole university (the law school's on this side of the Charles), and additionally Romney's article is unusual in that we show the high school which kind of justifies showing the later schools too. If we get early life pics, then we could swap.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I've tweaked the BYU caption to reflect that his wife went there too. As between the two pics, the BYU pic is a bit more relevant than the Harvard pic since they both went there, plus the business school is across the Charles, plus one picture is enough to liven things up, so I've removed the Harvard pic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I spent over a decade working for Utah-based companies in the past with many trips out there, so I know how spectacular the Utah Valley is and I've walked around the BYU campus among others. Anyway, I think the caption for the BYU pic should stick to that, so I've replaced the Harvard reference with his giving commencement addresses. Might as well emphasize that Romney is that true recent American rarity, a national candidate who was a top-notch performer in college. Hillary also qualifies, but for the most part the records have ranged from decent to below mediocre to really bad to total screw-up to erratic multiple attempts to cheater. Don't know why this is, but it is ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The caption's fine. I personally put a lot more stock in non-political achievements after school, than in the school record. Whatever. I wonder how long this article will remain placid.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I predict article will be stable for the duration. Reasons:
Romney is old news now
Wikipedia is old news now
Article is much more comprehensive now
Article is much better now
For comparison, this is the article from exactly four years ago. Only 1500 words, some weird weightings of subject matter, a few factual mistakes, some not very reliable sources, and not a single mention of health care reform. Someone must have been clairvoyant ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you meant "old news" in the sense of being well known already. :-) So, do you have FAC ambitions for this article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Congrats
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Congrats to Wasted Time on the GA, and also congrats to Anythingyouwant from everyone at WP:WikiProject Conservatism. Lionel (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Image pertinence
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I removed the olympics logo and suggest removing the Bain logo and BYU campus pic as well. Contrary to prior discussion on this page (archived here), WP:IMAGE states, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." I too would like more pictures in this article, but we'll just have to work a little harder. I've uploaded and included in the article a fair-use pic of Mitt with father George, which I believe would pass FAC3. —Eustresstalk 15:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's an Olympics image that is more directly about Romney, since it is specifically about the 2002 Winter Olympics rather than the olympics generally.
"Utahns have contributed $2 million to SLOC's license plate program and another $150 million in sponsorships and donorships Romney said", Deseret News, The (Salt Lake City, UT) - June 23, 2001.[11]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't believe a picture of an olympic license plate adheres to policy either. Perhaps a picture of Romney holding an olympic license plate, but not a license plate by itself. Fortuitously, I did some sleuthing and found an olympic pic of Romney to replace the license plate! Now can we remove the Bain logo and BYU campus pic as well? —Eustresstalk 00:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Good find, Eustress. The new photo is a bit better than the license plate photo. But I'd urge you to look at the photos in featured articles, such as Ima Hogg. That article includes images of buildings and art objects that are devoid of Ms. Hogg's likeness altogether. What's good enough for Ima Hogg should be good enough for Mitt Romney, no?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand. Are there any biography FAs with logos? A logo seems like too far a stretch to me. Regarding the BYU pic, why feature a pic of BYU (where he spent 3 years, I believe) instead of a pic of Harvard, where he spent 4 years? Even so, a university picture seems too generic. Thousands have attended these universities. Ima Hogg's article features her previous residences and a museum she designed -- much more directly related and unique to the individual, much more encyclopedic. —Eustresstalk 14:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia allows a featured BLP to include a logo. See Edgar_Speyer#Financier. If we can further explore featured BLPs, you'll find that the images are often not as closely related to the subject as you're indicating. Both Romney and his wife (not just him) went to college at BYU, and lived on campus there, and he gave commencement speeches there. In contrast, we don't have a single pic that shows Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and the neighborhood where Romney and his wife lived in Cambridge. If we find a more closely relevant pic for that section of the Wikipedia article, then more power to you, but in the mean time the BYU pic looks fine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Eustress, good work on finding the Olympics pic. I searched for one in Flickr awhile back, but didn't find any under the right licensing. However, I am really doubtful that your fair use claim on the George and Mitt image will hold up. I couldn't use any such images in the George W. Romney article and really had to scramble for the ones I did. Indeed, during its FAC someone ran a OTRS on one of them just to confirm it was public domain. If fair use was allowed, that wouldn't have been necessary. Moreover, wire service photos such as this AP one have a special level of protection in fair use discussions – see WP:NFC#UUI point #7 in the Unacceptable use list: "A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." I've seen a fair number of wire service images tossed out. Finally, your statement that no free image can ever be found of George and Mitt together is a bit dubious, since they staged joint appearances during Mitt's 1994 senate campaign and it's quite possible something out there took a photo and will scan it in and post it on Commons someday. Don't mean to be negative, but if I thought George and Mitt photos from the Boston Globe series were allowable I would have added them a year ago! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Good points. I'll keep looking for pics and see if there is a way to make the current father-son pic work. Thanks! —Eustresstalk 14:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Not done: Welcome. This is not an appropriate place to argue whether "enhanced interogation techniques" are torture. Some people agree with you and others see a distinction between the two. I have the impression that Romney falls in the latter group and claiming he supports torture under those circumstances would misrepresent his position in much the same way that an editor with an anti-abortion POV might characterize a pro-choice politician as being opposed to murder, except in the case of unborn children. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
This article, despite lots of effort fails. Rather than fight and resist, step back for a while and retry.
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR): 
