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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Given that Mitt Romney has been engaged in many high profile controversies i.e., Romneycare and his seemingly inconsistent views on abortion (to name a few), I feel that a diservice is being done by not includng them in the article. Though they need not be worded as to cast him in a bad light their absence creates the appearance of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.17.163.215 ( talk) 10:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Gee, maybe the Republican who wrote the above opposition might like to visit the Wikipedia page for Bill Clinton entitled "Public Opinion"( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Public_opinion), or the one entitled "Allegations of sexual misconduct" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Allegations_of_sexual_misconduct)? Or, how about the one for John F. Kennedy called "Extra-marital relationships( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK#Extra-marital_relationships)? After all, if these sorts of sections are considered "a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism" for Republicans, then they certainly must also be a violation for Democrats. Or do we have separate rules for each party now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.226.142 ( talk) 03:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Just as a heads-up, Reuters and several other reliable sources are reporting that before jumping into the 2008 GOP primary, Romney spent about $100,000 of taxpayer money in a legal, but unprecedented, effort to hide or destroy the records of his governorship ( [1]). I will leave it to the regular editors of this article to decide whether and where this should be briefly mentioned. MastCell Talk 20:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
At the end of Romney's term, several of his staffers purchased the hard drives from their state-issued computers, and emails were deleted from the server.[179] Under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, the emails did not have to be made public but did have to be preserved.[179] Terry Dolan, who worked as director of administration under Romney and several other governors, has said that scrubbing the servers was a common practice but that selling the hard drives was not.[180] When news of the actions became widely known in 2011, a Romney spokesperson said that the purchase of the computer equipment "complied with the law and longtime executive branch practice."[179] Aides to Romney's three predecessors as governor said that they did not know of any prior sales of hard drives to staffers.[180] When questioned on the subject in 2011, Romney responded that he had not wanted the information to be available to "opposition research teams".[181]
So the staff of Governor Romney followed the law, broke no Massachusetts rules or regulations, and followed a practice that was done by previous occupiers of his office, and you believe that it needs to be mentioned in his Bio? Why? Because his liberal opponents brought it up hoping to make him look bad by the mere appearance of impropriety? Is that really something biographical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.245.159 ( talk) 02:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Article now has one (created with an edit summary referencing Mike_Huckabee#Public_image, George_W._Bush#Public_image_and_perception, Hillary_Clinton#Cultural_and_political_image, etc., etc.).-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 01:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 22:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)"The Bain of Mitt’s Campaign. By the time Mitt Romney walked into the Faneuil Hall offices of his mentor and boss, Bill Bain, in the spring of 1983, the 36-year-old was already a business-consulting star, coveted by clients for his analytical cool. He was, as people had said of him since childhood, mature beyond his years and organized to a fault. Everything he took on was thought through in advance, down to the smallest detail; he was rarely taken by surprise." –– Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, Vanity Fair, February 2012
Instead of the oblique stroke (/), the article should indicate that Romney has both J.D. and M.B.A. degrees. So it should read "J.D. and M.B.A. degrees" rather than "J.D./M.B.A." degrees. The virgule indicates that either may be chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 ( talk) 03:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't this photo deserve a place in the article? It certainly seems newsworthy, and it's gotten lots of press. But I still struggle to decide where it should go and how to present it in a neutral way. Maybe someone else can take a stab at it. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 21:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
This Article/page lost some historical perspective when the picture of young Mitt Romney and his Father George Romney was removed. It would be good to find a picture that meets WP standards of free use. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 12:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC) . . . "A picture is worth a thousand words", most often.
He say it today and get 158M Google hits [3] quite a result. -- 99.90.197.87 ( talk) [19:04, January 9, 2012 ]
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/203051-romney-i-like-to-be-able-to-fire-people Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 00:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I suspect many people will be coming here today to find out about this, and we owe it to them to provide the accurate information (disclaimer: I'm not a Romney supporter). -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is missing key information about Mr. Romney's draft deferment, as a missionary, and, overall has the tone of a public relations piece. Please reconsider. [22:58, January 9, 2012 Hlwelborn]
"See Also" :: Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. This will be increasingly more important to this Article.
http://2012newhampshireprimary.com/ . . . Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 05:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
File:Mitt_Romney_by_Gage_Skidmore_3.jpg was in use as the lead image for this article for a time, but it has since (can't identify the diff) been changed back to File:Mitt_Romney.jpg. I prefer the former since it is much more recent (the latter is a few years old). Thoughts? — Eustress talk 16:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this piece from The Wall Street Journal might be a good source for this article's section on Romney's business career. Mark Arsten ( talk) 23:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Xris0 has put a POV tag on the "Political positions" section with the comment "flagging because this is written like an advertisement from his campaign, speaking of vague instincts and ideologies rather than concrete NPOV positions". Dealing with these two claims:
I hardly see how any section that includes these sentences or phrases can be construed as an advertisement:
To be any more direct about Romney's lack of core ideological principles would violate BLP rules. And the article does give Romney's perspective on this question, as well as include the perspective of several thoughtful writers. But the overall pattern of Romney's behavior is clear for anyone to see.
Regarding not including concrete positions, there are too many of them, and too many changes over time within each one, to include them all here. That's what the Political positions of Mitt Romney article is for. There, effectively unlimited space is available to explore all issues and their complexities and nuances regarding the stances Romney took. To try to do that in very compressed form in the main article just leads to endless editorial battles. With members of Congress, there is an easy way to avoid this trap and use the various ideological scores that well-known publications give to them; see FA article John McCain#Political positions and GA article Joe Biden#Political positions for a couple of examples of this (each has separate "Political positions of X" articles as well). But for a non-legislator, such scores and ratings don't exist. So instead, this section describes a few of Romney's best-known positions (and changes), but mainly is an analytical summary of Romney's political stances and ideology and worldview as a whole. I strongly believe that this combination of summary section together with detailed positions article is the best way of handling this.
So in sum, I think this POV tag is unjustified and should be removed. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Romney was not preceded by Paul Cellucci. His direct predecessor was Jane Swift, who served as acting governor after Cellucci was appointed Ambassador to Canada. Can someone with editing privileges make this change?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Massachusetts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salada63 ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
How one can posit referenced facts have or do not have sense ?
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In early life- it states his father "had been born in Mexico". It seems they are trying to make it seem like it's not important. His father and grandfather were born in Mexico. That makes him half mexican. Would there be any question of that if he was darker?
Tovanche1 ( talk) 00:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Team, how can we hide the fact that Romney's top contributors are mostly banks? Although most voters won't google such term, it's clear the media can pick this up. Any ideas? For example
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286 [02:32, January 15, 2012 108.80.156.25]
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there some reason an on line encyclopedia should refer to public figures by their nickname? If MITT is acceptable Dick Nixon or Fritz Reagan? I propose the name of the page be changed to Willard Romney Cosand ( talk) 01:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The DesMoines Register is reporting that the GOP is now saying Romney came second in the Iowa Caucus. The sentence, "In the initial 2012 Iowa caucuses of January 3, Romney won with 25 percent of the vote, edging out a late-surging Rick Santorum by eight votes, with an also-surging Ron Paul finishing third." needs to be corrected to reflect the certified totals. I would prefer if a regular editor of this article could update this so there is no drama. - Shiftchange ( talk) 15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been trying to change the wording on the section regarding the Iowa caucus non-win for Mitt and Wasted continuously reverts the wording. Currently emphasis the initial erroneous reports that Romney had won and downplays the final certified results where Romney was behind Santorum. Jfmcel —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC).
The tone of this article reads like it was written by Romney campaign staffers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.135.2 ( talk) 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
He will not show his birth certificate to prove his middle name is "Mitt", which therefore means without proof, it must be assumed "Mitt" is a nickname. I feel it is common knowledge his body language says he hiding something.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/news/29418469_1_romney-spokesman-eric-fehrnstrom-romney-family-mormonism http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57350334-503544/obama-team-exploits-romney-teams-birther-gaffe/ Eagleeyedelaphant ( talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)eagleeyedelaphant Eagleeyedelaphant ( talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)1947 Willard Milton "Mitt" Romney is born on March 12 in Detroit.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article on Mitt Romney says the following:
"In the initial 2012 Iowa caucuses of January 3, Romney was announced as the victor on election night with 25 percent of the vote, edging out a late-surging Rick Santorum by eight votes, with an also-surging Ron Paul finishing third[248] (but sixteen days later, Santorum was certified as the winner by a 34-vote margin).[249]"
I would like to see this article mention that the certified vote does not include eight precincts which are unaccounted for. Footnote 249 in the Mitt Romney article makes clear mention of this. Also, iowagop.org has a vote tally which shows those precincts as missing.
Thanks for your time. Stoutadam ( talk) 06:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Stoutadam ( talk) 06:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Any one know his beliefs on such issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.227.95 ( talk) 00:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Currently the public-perceptions-of-Mitt sub-article actually contains little specifically about his image in it. However, if the content in the blp wrt this section were expanded there, that article might come to fit keep its present title--otherwise, it ought be rechristened "background and identity" or some such: just in my humble opinion. Anyone else have any opinion on how-'n'-where wiki covers this aspect?-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 09:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The sub needs to be filled out. You've been watching too many political debates because your argument tends to rely on characterizations/labeling instead on the underlying issues of what notable details need to be covered to produce a picture of the subject that's more complete. Your ad hoc and circular thrusts notwithstanding, the bottom line is that the Public Image sub needs to be made more inclusive or else refocused: a contention with which you don't seem actually to disagree, yet which you completely bypass. ...Through your contention (to my reading) that the sub-article is akin to mere pop-culture fluff not meriting summary in a parent article, yada yada. Get over urself... Um, your False Pride in having shepherded it admirably to Good Article status and seek after the "true" . . "pride" in our working together to get as much competent and complete coverage of our topic as poss.
Btw, I'm going over to the F.A. page and nom ur article here for it. Ciao. <smiles>
--
Hodgdon's secret garden (
talk) 14:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
wp:IPC's lede:
Many articles about subjects with broad cultural impact have sections titled "In popular culture," "Cultural references," or "In fiction," which exclusively contain references to the subject in popular culture. When these sections become lengthy, some Wikipedians spin them off into separate articles to keep main articles short.
When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not.
When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract non-notable entries, especially if they are in list format.
Topics concerning the issues of the public receptions of well-known figures is a type of coverage at which WP can excel and even distinguish itself from print encycolopedias. Of course, info that might find temporary/somewhat permanent placement in such a daughter article may/may not be even mentioned in a series' mother article. Just as with concern a theoretical sub-article about Mitt's career with the Bain companies (or Newt's Western Georgia College years) that should either have its content merged with Mitt's (Newt's) main blp or else should be linked to in the main blp, I believe the same approach/decision is applicable w/concern to popular-culture/compendium-of-opinions-about-the-main-subject - type articles.
IOW - Is the sub-article's coverage of R's religion so anemic that nothing of encyclopedic value is included there that does not already appear in this main blp? If the answer is yes, then a merger should be considered. (Eg recently I added some minor content to Seamus (dog), and, noting the current deletion discussion, I researched a bit and came across the AFD for the biography of Paris Hilton's chihuahua Tinkerbell, which article ended up being merged with its parent). If the answer is no, then, I believe, per the guidelines, a link to the sub should be provided from this article.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 02:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he attended Stanford, which is noted in the article. However in the info box, it now lists Stanford as one of his alma maters. The last time I noted this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mitt_Romney/Archive_7#Alma_Mater), Stanford was not listed in the info box, but instead was in the introduction (and subsequently removed). Now the opposite is true.
Stanford doesn't consider him an alum, nor does he claim an affiliation with the school. It should be permanently removed from the info box, since the minor detail of his single-year attendance is more than covered by an entire paragraph with 3 different sources at the very beginning of section 1.2. (Really, he's already an alum of Harvard; there's no need for this disingenuous partial-association stuff.) 66.59.249.107 ( talk) 10:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Romney has stated he would not mind people to regard him as a Mexican American, although he believes that people may view him as not being honest, as reported in the Los Angeles Times. Should this be included in the article? What weight should this statement be given? Would the subject's self identification as a Mexican American, and documented heritage connection to the nation-state of Mexico be sufficient to label the subject in the category Mexican American?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 02:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 03:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)“…my dad was born in Mexico, and I am proud of my heritage. But he was born of U.S. citizens who were living in Mexico at the time, and was not Hispanic. He never spoke Spanish, nor did his parents. So I can’t claim that honor.”--- Ramos interview w R transcript
( edit conflict)Christian Science Monitor did report it as well. The LA Times article is as follows:
In the article it says rather specifically the following:
I would love to be able to convince people of that, particularly in a Florida primary,
— Mitt Romney
I don’t think people would think I was being honest with them if I said I was Mexican American,
— Mitt Romney
He does appear to self- identify in the article, but does not believe that people would believe his self-identification.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
JR: The mother of former governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, she was born in Mexico, and he calls himself Mexican-American. Your father was born in Mexico. So the question is, are you Mexican-American? Could you be the first Hispanic president?
MR: I would love to be able to convince people of that, particularly in a Florida primary. [Laughter.] But I think that might be disingenuous on my part, because, in my case, my dad was born in Mexico, and I am proud of my heritage. But he was born of U.S. citizens who were living in Mexico at the time, and was not Hispanic. He never spoke Spanish, nor did his parents. So I can’t claim that honor. But he lived in Mexico until he was five or six years old. And then, with the revolution in Mexico, his parents and he, as a young boy, came back to the United States and settled in the western part of the country.
JR: So you wouldn’t call yourself Mexican-American, even though he is Mexican by definition. I just read the Mexican constitution, and they would say that he is.
MR: I don’t think people would think I was being honest with them if I said I was Mexican-American. But I would appreciate it if you’d get that word out. [Applause.] And, by the way, we haven’t recognized someone in the audience here today, who is one of America’s great heroes, and that is the first Hispanic senator, Mel Martinez. I just want to have Mel Martinez be recognized. [Applause.] Mel? Thank you. I think Mel actually is Cuban-American, right? [Laughter.]
MSNBC video of dual-citizen US-Mexican Romney kin-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 03:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Translation of form at Mexican consulates: "Dear Countryman/woman [Paisano] - If you are Mexican and have children born in the United States, by registering them in any Mexican consulate they will have dual nationality."-- HuffPo
--- WSJ
[...]Gingrich pulled a political ad that had applied the “anti-immigrant” label to Romney, but when asked whether he believed that description was accurate, he said he did.
Romney countered: “I’m not anti-immigrant. My father was born in Mexico. My wife’s father was born in Wales. They came to this country. The idea that I’m anti-immigrant is repulsive. It’s simply the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that has characterized American politics for too long.”--- WaPo article • video
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 05:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 07:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
In the Business career section we've just had an addition telling us that Romney was "tapped to serve on the board of directors for Sports Authority..." I don't understand it. The word "tapped" is not used in the source. What's it mean? HiLo48 ( talk) 21:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I also disagree with a change that was made without discussion to restructure the lead. For starters, it made the lead five paragraphs, in violation of WP:LEAD's limit of four. It presented some material in a different order than the article, which I don't think is wise. It added material about being married to Ann Romney and having five children, which is not otherwise biographically significant in the lead narrative (compare to, say, Bill and Hillary Clinton) and which is already sitting there in the infobox for all to see. It then added material about Ann Romney overcoming two diseases, which is discussed in the article text but doesn't need to be in this article's lead (and I don't think the breast cancer even belongs in her lead, but that's a subject for discussion at Ann Romney). Finally, for a subject that's heavily in the news like this one, the lead should end with the most current activities, so that it naturally be extended with whatever happens next.
So for all these reasons, I've reverted the lead to the previous structure which has been in place for a good amount of time. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Eustress added Mitt's stints on boards of directors to the lead and to the infobox. First, the one for Sports Authority needs a real source, as NNDB does not qualify - see discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_101#NNDB among other places. I looked around but couldn't find anything, although I didn't do an exhaustive search. Second, I don't think I've ever seen boards of directors placed in infoboxes; are there any examples you can point to? Third, I don't think these stints are biographically significant enough for Romney to put in the lead. Did he take any notable positions on them, such as arguing for a change in direction in the company or replacing top management? I have seen cases where board memberships are mentioned in the lead, where something happened during the stint. But I'm open to persuasion on this. And of course the ones that are well-sourced should be in the article body (and thanks for digging up the earlier stint on Marriott) . Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering, what the procedure would be for adding Mitt's nicknames to his name/title in the article. His well known, well received nickname "Mittens" is, for whatever reason, not included in this article.
It should be. I can cite its usage, if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.95.164 ( talk) 22:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The search (in the art) for "dog*" found only "conservative dogma" . Please add the subject is so popular. Google hits 'About 150,000,000 results' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 13:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the dog story has long been included in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 article. It could presumably be added to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 should the press attention be enough. But wait ... now there is a dedicated article Seamus (dog)! Can WP:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) be far behind? Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Snopes, in reporting the incident, says: "In that Boston Globe article, the incident was pointed to as an example of Romney's emotion-free crisis management style. Others viewed it differently, regarding the mode of canine transport the dog was subjected to as unnecessarily callous and cruel." [8] That seems to be a good summary of the competing POV's on this subject. We might state the facts in a sentence or two, then quote that summary verbatim, citing Snopes. JamesMLane t c 20:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Even Fox News contributor Lanny Davis wrote, "I think anyone who puts his dog in a cage on top of a car for a 12-hour drive and then deludes himself or tries to delude others that the dog really enjoyed it — to me, with all due respect, I feel such a man shouldn’t be president of the United States." I'm no regular reader or viewer of Fox News, but it seems to me that such strong criticism of the most popular Republican presidential candidate from Fox News is unprecedented. ThFSPB ( talk) 02:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm an Australian, so cannot vote in your election. Even if I could, I would be unlikely to vote Republican. (Even the Democratic Party is well to the right of any of our major parties.) Obviously detractors of Romney want this material here, and so you might think I would too, but I see it as the most outdated, irrelevant, undue, stupid nonsense I've seen proposed for a Wikipedia article for a long time. Get serious about this article, please, and drop this trash. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
There is far too much focus on the neo-Marxist vanity project of homosexual identity politics in this section (under "gay rights"). There are far more significant aspects to focus on, for example, explaining where Romney stands on a potential Israeli conflict with Iran (which could lead to World War Three), how he proposes to fix the economy, where he stands on immigration. Homosexuals constitute a tiny fragment of the population yet they are the primary focus in this section of a man who may be the next president of the world's only superpower. [15:56, January 23, 2012 90.205.6.125]
I know about BRD, but I think it's better if radical changes in the article section section are discussed first. I have strong objections to the change that was made that created a top-level section "Legacy" at the end (this section title is usually only for people who are retired or dead), "Church and community service" (what community service? George yes, Mitt no), and "Philanthropy" (most of Mitt's giving is to church, which is a different kettle of fish; "Philanthropy" sections should be reserved for articles like Bill Gates or Andrew Carnegie where that is one of the central aspects of their lives).
So I've reverted back to the previous structure. I do realize that the "Business career" section is stretching its bounds, so I modified the title to "Business career and wealth", which conveys both the time at BCG-B&C-BC and the money that continues to come in through that. "Local church leadership" belongs where it is in the chronology, because unlike what somebody changed, Mitt never had another significant lay clergy position after he ran for Senate in 1994. I remain committed to the belief that a chronological organization is best for this article. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
My having read lots of Wasted Time R's posts on wiki talkpages over the years, as soon as my synapses realized that my eyes were about to skim over a reference he was going to be making to an edit of mine, my body did a Pavlovian um "wince." And, sure enough, he says, "that was done by an editor from this article" (perhaps I'm paraphrasing), and my "internal decoder" sort of hears Wasted Time R's tone being as though he had said "that idiot guy who edits here." Then my eye's metaphorical leg, whoa!, trips over the word spurious.
True story. An editor we'll call Joe notes that Barack Obama gives to charity. Not everyone does, you know. So--just as our friend and admittedly good editor Wasted Time R believes it important to note bio subjects' honorary degrees and the like--this editor, Joe, put this info on the Obama page. Joe didn't re-read the whole 'Bama article. Joe simply quickly saw a reasonable placement and popped it in there, figuring that that page's keepers would eventually see to its best placement elsewhere, if necessary, or even its entire removal. (Thereafter another editor added stuff to the information, by the way; but, as of yet, no-one has found a better placement for it.) But--spurious?
1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine: spurious poems attributed to Shakespeare.
2. Not trustworthy; dubious or fallacious: spurious reasoning; a spurious justification.
Well, here's the def to yet another word.
noun. A person who demonstrates an exaggerated conformity or propriety, especially in an irritatingly arrogant or smug manner.--- Amer. Her.
;~) <..that's a wink!>-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Pending talkpage discussion, I've tentatively restored content that was recently removed from the article: the sentence dealing with the R's political family, found in the section dealing with his heritage. Related articles about notable families are linked to in biographies on WP. Eg, cf.:
As an aside, I believe what the guidelines disapprove of is belabored genealogical musing in biographies. Eg, perhaps a portion of the following info would more properly fit in a sub-article of some kind?
Main article: Roosevelt family.
"Roosevelt often described his ancestry as "half Irish and half Dutch."[6] The Roosevelt family, colonists of Dutch origin, had been in New York since the mid-17th century. Roosevelt was born into considerable wealth, for the family by the 19th century had grown in wealth, power, and influence from the profits of several businesses, including hardware and plate-glass importing. The family was strongly Democratic in its political affiliation until the mid-1850s, and then joined the new Republican Party. Theodore's father, known in the family as "Thee", was a New York City philanthropist, merchant, and partner in the family glass-importing firm Roosevelt and Son. "Father," as the children called him, was an ardent Unionist, a prominent supporter of Abraham Lincoln and the Union effort during the American Civil War. His mother Martha "Mittie" Bulloch was a Southern belle from a slave-owning family in Roswell, Georgia, and she maintained Confederate sympathies. Mittie's brother, Theodore's uncle, James Dunwoody Bulloch, was a United States Navy officer who became a Confederate admiral and naval procurement officer and secret agent in Britain. Another uncle, Irvine Bulloch, was a midshipman on the Confederate raider CSS Alabama; both remained in England after the war.[7]
Theodore Roosevelt was distantly related by birth to the 32nd president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (they were fifth cousins), and he was the uncle of Franklin D. Roosevelt's wife, Eleanor Roosevelt.
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 06:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 06:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Claims made which are not specifically made by a reliable source about genealogy do not belong in any BLP. In the case at hand, the sources do not make the claims made. Posted at WP:BLP/N. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
(The WP article on the clan Kimball belonged to is Kimball–Snow–Woolley family.) In any case--at least in my opinion--... "Through his aunt Helen Mar Kimball, he was a nephew of Joseph Smith, Jr..
Early life. Kimball was born in Salt Lake City, Utah Territory to Andrew Kimball and Olive Woolley, sister of Mormon pioneer and eventual Mormon fundamentalist John W. Woolley. When Spencer was three, his father was called to preside as president of the St. Joseph stake and his family relocated to the town of Thatcher in southeastern Arizona.
I'll try to source question below.
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
User Collect, I've made an edit (here) that downplays the whole "Leading family in Mormondom" aspect and just puts in a link at "Romneys' ancestors"--which might at least address some of the inherent synth problems, perhaps?-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 00:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
“ | Known for being frugal to a fault, Romney does not seem to particularly relish spending his fortune. He likes data, and his piles of dollars seem to be mainly markers to keep score of his success. | ” |
— New York magazine, January 2012 [1] |
I don't know if my own opinion of this recent quote from noted essayist Frank Rich (on right margin) is that it should be considered notable qua opinion or else considered notable qua a source for the subject's legendary thrift or else should be considered not to be notable.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 17:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Given that Mitt Romney has been engaged in many high profile controversies i.e., Romneycare and his seemingly inconsistent views on abortion (to name a few), I feel that a diservice is being done by not includng them in the article. Though they need not be worded as to cast him in a bad light their absence creates the appearance of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.17.163.215 ( talk) 10:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Gee, maybe the Republican who wrote the above opposition might like to visit the Wikipedia page for Bill Clinton entitled "Public Opinion"( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Public_opinion), or the one entitled "Allegations of sexual misconduct" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Allegations_of_sexual_misconduct)? Or, how about the one for John F. Kennedy called "Extra-marital relationships( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK#Extra-marital_relationships)? After all, if these sorts of sections are considered "a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism" for Republicans, then they certainly must also be a violation for Democrats. Or do we have separate rules for each party now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.226.142 ( talk) 03:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Just as a heads-up, Reuters and several other reliable sources are reporting that before jumping into the 2008 GOP primary, Romney spent about $100,000 of taxpayer money in a legal, but unprecedented, effort to hide or destroy the records of his governorship ( [1]). I will leave it to the regular editors of this article to decide whether and where this should be briefly mentioned. MastCell Talk 20:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
At the end of Romney's term, several of his staffers purchased the hard drives from their state-issued computers, and emails were deleted from the server.[179] Under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, the emails did not have to be made public but did have to be preserved.[179] Terry Dolan, who worked as director of administration under Romney and several other governors, has said that scrubbing the servers was a common practice but that selling the hard drives was not.[180] When news of the actions became widely known in 2011, a Romney spokesperson said that the purchase of the computer equipment "complied with the law and longtime executive branch practice."[179] Aides to Romney's three predecessors as governor said that they did not know of any prior sales of hard drives to staffers.[180] When questioned on the subject in 2011, Romney responded that he had not wanted the information to be available to "opposition research teams".[181]
So the staff of Governor Romney followed the law, broke no Massachusetts rules or regulations, and followed a practice that was done by previous occupiers of his office, and you believe that it needs to be mentioned in his Bio? Why? Because his liberal opponents brought it up hoping to make him look bad by the mere appearance of impropriety? Is that really something biographical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.245.159 ( talk) 02:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Article now has one (created with an edit summary referencing Mike_Huckabee#Public_image, George_W._Bush#Public_image_and_perception, Hillary_Clinton#Cultural_and_political_image, etc., etc.).-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 01:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 22:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)"The Bain of Mitt’s Campaign. By the time Mitt Romney walked into the Faneuil Hall offices of his mentor and boss, Bill Bain, in the spring of 1983, the 36-year-old was already a business-consulting star, coveted by clients for his analytical cool. He was, as people had said of him since childhood, mature beyond his years and organized to a fault. Everything he took on was thought through in advance, down to the smallest detail; he was rarely taken by surprise." –– Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, Vanity Fair, February 2012
Instead of the oblique stroke (/), the article should indicate that Romney has both J.D. and M.B.A. degrees. So it should read "J.D. and M.B.A. degrees" rather than "J.D./M.B.A." degrees. The virgule indicates that either may be chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 ( talk) 03:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't this photo deserve a place in the article? It certainly seems newsworthy, and it's gotten lots of press. But I still struggle to decide where it should go and how to present it in a neutral way. Maybe someone else can take a stab at it. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 21:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
This Article/page lost some historical perspective when the picture of young Mitt Romney and his Father George Romney was removed. It would be good to find a picture that meets WP standards of free use. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 12:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC) . . . "A picture is worth a thousand words", most often.
He say it today and get 158M Google hits [3] quite a result. -- 99.90.197.87 ( talk) [19:04, January 9, 2012 ]
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/203051-romney-i-like-to-be-able-to-fire-people Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 00:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I suspect many people will be coming here today to find out about this, and we owe it to them to provide the accurate information (disclaimer: I'm not a Romney supporter). -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is missing key information about Mr. Romney's draft deferment, as a missionary, and, overall has the tone of a public relations piece. Please reconsider. [22:58, January 9, 2012 Hlwelborn]
"See Also" :: Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. This will be increasingly more important to this Article.
http://2012newhampshireprimary.com/ . . . Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 05:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
File:Mitt_Romney_by_Gage_Skidmore_3.jpg was in use as the lead image for this article for a time, but it has since (can't identify the diff) been changed back to File:Mitt_Romney.jpg. I prefer the former since it is much more recent (the latter is a few years old). Thoughts? — Eustress talk 16:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this piece from The Wall Street Journal might be a good source for this article's section on Romney's business career. Mark Arsten ( talk) 23:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Xris0 has put a POV tag on the "Political positions" section with the comment "flagging because this is written like an advertisement from his campaign, speaking of vague instincts and ideologies rather than concrete NPOV positions". Dealing with these two claims:
I hardly see how any section that includes these sentences or phrases can be construed as an advertisement:
To be any more direct about Romney's lack of core ideological principles would violate BLP rules. And the article does give Romney's perspective on this question, as well as include the perspective of several thoughtful writers. But the overall pattern of Romney's behavior is clear for anyone to see.
Regarding not including concrete positions, there are too many of them, and too many changes over time within each one, to include them all here. That's what the Political positions of Mitt Romney article is for. There, effectively unlimited space is available to explore all issues and their complexities and nuances regarding the stances Romney took. To try to do that in very compressed form in the main article just leads to endless editorial battles. With members of Congress, there is an easy way to avoid this trap and use the various ideological scores that well-known publications give to them; see FA article John McCain#Political positions and GA article Joe Biden#Political positions for a couple of examples of this (each has separate "Political positions of X" articles as well). But for a non-legislator, such scores and ratings don't exist. So instead, this section describes a few of Romney's best-known positions (and changes), but mainly is an analytical summary of Romney's political stances and ideology and worldview as a whole. I strongly believe that this combination of summary section together with detailed positions article is the best way of handling this.
So in sum, I think this POV tag is unjustified and should be removed. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Romney was not preceded by Paul Cellucci. His direct predecessor was Jane Swift, who served as acting governor after Cellucci was appointed Ambassador to Canada. Can someone with editing privileges make this change?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Massachusetts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salada63 ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
How one can posit referenced facts have or do not have sense ?
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In early life- it states his father "had been born in Mexico". It seems they are trying to make it seem like it's not important. His father and grandfather were born in Mexico. That makes him half mexican. Would there be any question of that if he was darker?
Tovanche1 ( talk) 00:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Team, how can we hide the fact that Romney's top contributors are mostly banks? Although most voters won't google such term, it's clear the media can pick this up. Any ideas? For example
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286 [02:32, January 15, 2012 108.80.156.25]
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there some reason an on line encyclopedia should refer to public figures by their nickname? If MITT is acceptable Dick Nixon or Fritz Reagan? I propose the name of the page be changed to Willard Romney Cosand ( talk) 01:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The DesMoines Register is reporting that the GOP is now saying Romney came second in the Iowa Caucus. The sentence, "In the initial 2012 Iowa caucuses of January 3, Romney won with 25 percent of the vote, edging out a late-surging Rick Santorum by eight votes, with an also-surging Ron Paul finishing third." needs to be corrected to reflect the certified totals. I would prefer if a regular editor of this article could update this so there is no drama. - Shiftchange ( talk) 15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been trying to change the wording on the section regarding the Iowa caucus non-win for Mitt and Wasted continuously reverts the wording. Currently emphasis the initial erroneous reports that Romney had won and downplays the final certified results where Romney was behind Santorum. Jfmcel —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC).
The tone of this article reads like it was written by Romney campaign staffers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.135.2 ( talk) 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
He will not show his birth certificate to prove his middle name is "Mitt", which therefore means without proof, it must be assumed "Mitt" is a nickname. I feel it is common knowledge his body language says he hiding something.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/news/29418469_1_romney-spokesman-eric-fehrnstrom-romney-family-mormonism http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57350334-503544/obama-team-exploits-romney-teams-birther-gaffe/ Eagleeyedelaphant ( talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)eagleeyedelaphant Eagleeyedelaphant ( talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)1947 Willard Milton "Mitt" Romney is born on March 12 in Detroit.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article on Mitt Romney says the following:
"In the initial 2012 Iowa caucuses of January 3, Romney was announced as the victor on election night with 25 percent of the vote, edging out a late-surging Rick Santorum by eight votes, with an also-surging Ron Paul finishing third[248] (but sixteen days later, Santorum was certified as the winner by a 34-vote margin).[249]"
I would like to see this article mention that the certified vote does not include eight precincts which are unaccounted for. Footnote 249 in the Mitt Romney article makes clear mention of this. Also, iowagop.org has a vote tally which shows those precincts as missing.
Thanks for your time. Stoutadam ( talk) 06:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Stoutadam ( talk) 06:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Any one know his beliefs on such issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.227.95 ( talk) 00:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Currently the public-perceptions-of-Mitt sub-article actually contains little specifically about his image in it. However, if the content in the blp wrt this section were expanded there, that article might come to fit keep its present title--otherwise, it ought be rechristened "background and identity" or some such: just in my humble opinion. Anyone else have any opinion on how-'n'-where wiki covers this aspect?-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 09:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The sub needs to be filled out. You've been watching too many political debates because your argument tends to rely on characterizations/labeling instead on the underlying issues of what notable details need to be covered to produce a picture of the subject that's more complete. Your ad hoc and circular thrusts notwithstanding, the bottom line is that the Public Image sub needs to be made more inclusive or else refocused: a contention with which you don't seem actually to disagree, yet which you completely bypass. ...Through your contention (to my reading) that the sub-article is akin to mere pop-culture fluff not meriting summary in a parent article, yada yada. Get over urself... Um, your False Pride in having shepherded it admirably to Good Article status and seek after the "true" . . "pride" in our working together to get as much competent and complete coverage of our topic as poss.
Btw, I'm going over to the F.A. page and nom ur article here for it. Ciao. <smiles>
--
Hodgdon's secret garden (
talk) 14:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
wp:IPC's lede:
Many articles about subjects with broad cultural impact have sections titled "In popular culture," "Cultural references," or "In fiction," which exclusively contain references to the subject in popular culture. When these sections become lengthy, some Wikipedians spin them off into separate articles to keep main articles short.
When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not.
When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract non-notable entries, especially if they are in list format.
Topics concerning the issues of the public receptions of well-known figures is a type of coverage at which WP can excel and even distinguish itself from print encycolopedias. Of course, info that might find temporary/somewhat permanent placement in such a daughter article may/may not be even mentioned in a series' mother article. Just as with concern a theoretical sub-article about Mitt's career with the Bain companies (or Newt's Western Georgia College years) that should either have its content merged with Mitt's (Newt's) main blp or else should be linked to in the main blp, I believe the same approach/decision is applicable w/concern to popular-culture/compendium-of-opinions-about-the-main-subject - type articles.
IOW - Is the sub-article's coverage of R's religion so anemic that nothing of encyclopedic value is included there that does not already appear in this main blp? If the answer is yes, then a merger should be considered. (Eg recently I added some minor content to Seamus (dog), and, noting the current deletion discussion, I researched a bit and came across the AFD for the biography of Paris Hilton's chihuahua Tinkerbell, which article ended up being merged with its parent). If the answer is no, then, I believe, per the guidelines, a link to the sub should be provided from this article.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 02:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he attended Stanford, which is noted in the article. However in the info box, it now lists Stanford as one of his alma maters. The last time I noted this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mitt_Romney/Archive_7#Alma_Mater), Stanford was not listed in the info box, but instead was in the introduction (and subsequently removed). Now the opposite is true.
Stanford doesn't consider him an alum, nor does he claim an affiliation with the school. It should be permanently removed from the info box, since the minor detail of his single-year attendance is more than covered by an entire paragraph with 3 different sources at the very beginning of section 1.2. (Really, he's already an alum of Harvard; there's no need for this disingenuous partial-association stuff.) 66.59.249.107 ( talk) 10:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Romney has stated he would not mind people to regard him as a Mexican American, although he believes that people may view him as not being honest, as reported in the Los Angeles Times. Should this be included in the article? What weight should this statement be given? Would the subject's self identification as a Mexican American, and documented heritage connection to the nation-state of Mexico be sufficient to label the subject in the category Mexican American?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 02:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 03:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)“…my dad was born in Mexico, and I am proud of my heritage. But he was born of U.S. citizens who were living in Mexico at the time, and was not Hispanic. He never spoke Spanish, nor did his parents. So I can’t claim that honor.”--- Ramos interview w R transcript
( edit conflict)Christian Science Monitor did report it as well. The LA Times article is as follows:
In the article it says rather specifically the following:
I would love to be able to convince people of that, particularly in a Florida primary,
— Mitt Romney
I don’t think people would think I was being honest with them if I said I was Mexican American,
— Mitt Romney
He does appear to self- identify in the article, but does not believe that people would believe his self-identification.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
JR: The mother of former governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, she was born in Mexico, and he calls himself Mexican-American. Your father was born in Mexico. So the question is, are you Mexican-American? Could you be the first Hispanic president?
MR: I would love to be able to convince people of that, particularly in a Florida primary. [Laughter.] But I think that might be disingenuous on my part, because, in my case, my dad was born in Mexico, and I am proud of my heritage. But he was born of U.S. citizens who were living in Mexico at the time, and was not Hispanic. He never spoke Spanish, nor did his parents. So I can’t claim that honor. But he lived in Mexico until he was five or six years old. And then, with the revolution in Mexico, his parents and he, as a young boy, came back to the United States and settled in the western part of the country.
JR: So you wouldn’t call yourself Mexican-American, even though he is Mexican by definition. I just read the Mexican constitution, and they would say that he is.
MR: I don’t think people would think I was being honest with them if I said I was Mexican-American. But I would appreciate it if you’d get that word out. [Applause.] And, by the way, we haven’t recognized someone in the audience here today, who is one of America’s great heroes, and that is the first Hispanic senator, Mel Martinez. I just want to have Mel Martinez be recognized. [Applause.] Mel? Thank you. I think Mel actually is Cuban-American, right? [Laughter.]
MSNBC video of dual-citizen US-Mexican Romney kin-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 03:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Translation of form at Mexican consulates: "Dear Countryman/woman [Paisano] - If you are Mexican and have children born in the United States, by registering them in any Mexican consulate they will have dual nationality."-- HuffPo
--- WSJ
[...]Gingrich pulled a political ad that had applied the “anti-immigrant” label to Romney, but when asked whether he believed that description was accurate, he said he did.
Romney countered: “I’m not anti-immigrant. My father was born in Mexico. My wife’s father was born in Wales. They came to this country. The idea that I’m anti-immigrant is repulsive. It’s simply the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that has characterized American politics for too long.”--- WaPo article • video
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 05:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 07:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
In the Business career section we've just had an addition telling us that Romney was "tapped to serve on the board of directors for Sports Authority..." I don't understand it. The word "tapped" is not used in the source. What's it mean? HiLo48 ( talk) 21:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I also disagree with a change that was made without discussion to restructure the lead. For starters, it made the lead five paragraphs, in violation of WP:LEAD's limit of four. It presented some material in a different order than the article, which I don't think is wise. It added material about being married to Ann Romney and having five children, which is not otherwise biographically significant in the lead narrative (compare to, say, Bill and Hillary Clinton) and which is already sitting there in the infobox for all to see. It then added material about Ann Romney overcoming two diseases, which is discussed in the article text but doesn't need to be in this article's lead (and I don't think the breast cancer even belongs in her lead, but that's a subject for discussion at Ann Romney). Finally, for a subject that's heavily in the news like this one, the lead should end with the most current activities, so that it naturally be extended with whatever happens next.
So for all these reasons, I've reverted the lead to the previous structure which has been in place for a good amount of time. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Eustress added Mitt's stints on boards of directors to the lead and to the infobox. First, the one for Sports Authority needs a real source, as NNDB does not qualify - see discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_101#NNDB among other places. I looked around but couldn't find anything, although I didn't do an exhaustive search. Second, I don't think I've ever seen boards of directors placed in infoboxes; are there any examples you can point to? Third, I don't think these stints are biographically significant enough for Romney to put in the lead. Did he take any notable positions on them, such as arguing for a change in direction in the company or replacing top management? I have seen cases where board memberships are mentioned in the lead, where something happened during the stint. But I'm open to persuasion on this. And of course the ones that are well-sourced should be in the article body (and thanks for digging up the earlier stint on Marriott) . Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering, what the procedure would be for adding Mitt's nicknames to his name/title in the article. His well known, well received nickname "Mittens" is, for whatever reason, not included in this article.
It should be. I can cite its usage, if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.95.164 ( talk) 22:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The search (in the art) for "dog*" found only "conservative dogma" . Please add the subject is so popular. Google hits 'About 150,000,000 results' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 13:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the dog story has long been included in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 article. It could presumably be added to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 should the press attention be enough. But wait ... now there is a dedicated article Seamus (dog)! Can WP:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) be far behind? Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Snopes, in reporting the incident, says: "In that Boston Globe article, the incident was pointed to as an example of Romney's emotion-free crisis management style. Others viewed it differently, regarding the mode of canine transport the dog was subjected to as unnecessarily callous and cruel." [8] That seems to be a good summary of the competing POV's on this subject. We might state the facts in a sentence or two, then quote that summary verbatim, citing Snopes. JamesMLane t c 20:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Even Fox News contributor Lanny Davis wrote, "I think anyone who puts his dog in a cage on top of a car for a 12-hour drive and then deludes himself or tries to delude others that the dog really enjoyed it — to me, with all due respect, I feel such a man shouldn’t be president of the United States." I'm no regular reader or viewer of Fox News, but it seems to me that such strong criticism of the most popular Republican presidential candidate from Fox News is unprecedented. ThFSPB ( talk) 02:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm an Australian, so cannot vote in your election. Even if I could, I would be unlikely to vote Republican. (Even the Democratic Party is well to the right of any of our major parties.) Obviously detractors of Romney want this material here, and so you might think I would too, but I see it as the most outdated, irrelevant, undue, stupid nonsense I've seen proposed for a Wikipedia article for a long time. Get serious about this article, please, and drop this trash. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
There is far too much focus on the neo-Marxist vanity project of homosexual identity politics in this section (under "gay rights"). There are far more significant aspects to focus on, for example, explaining where Romney stands on a potential Israeli conflict with Iran (which could lead to World War Three), how he proposes to fix the economy, where he stands on immigration. Homosexuals constitute a tiny fragment of the population yet they are the primary focus in this section of a man who may be the next president of the world's only superpower. [15:56, January 23, 2012 90.205.6.125]
I know about BRD, but I think it's better if radical changes in the article section section are discussed first. I have strong objections to the change that was made that created a top-level section "Legacy" at the end (this section title is usually only for people who are retired or dead), "Church and community service" (what community service? George yes, Mitt no), and "Philanthropy" (most of Mitt's giving is to church, which is a different kettle of fish; "Philanthropy" sections should be reserved for articles like Bill Gates or Andrew Carnegie where that is one of the central aspects of their lives).
So I've reverted back to the previous structure. I do realize that the "Business career" section is stretching its bounds, so I modified the title to "Business career and wealth", which conveys both the time at BCG-B&C-BC and the money that continues to come in through that. "Local church leadership" belongs where it is in the chronology, because unlike what somebody changed, Mitt never had another significant lay clergy position after he ran for Senate in 1994. I remain committed to the belief that a chronological organization is best for this article. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
My having read lots of Wasted Time R's posts on wiki talkpages over the years, as soon as my synapses realized that my eyes were about to skim over a reference he was going to be making to an edit of mine, my body did a Pavlovian um "wince." And, sure enough, he says, "that was done by an editor from this article" (perhaps I'm paraphrasing), and my "internal decoder" sort of hears Wasted Time R's tone being as though he had said "that idiot guy who edits here." Then my eye's metaphorical leg, whoa!, trips over the word spurious.
True story. An editor we'll call Joe notes that Barack Obama gives to charity. Not everyone does, you know. So--just as our friend and admittedly good editor Wasted Time R believes it important to note bio subjects' honorary degrees and the like--this editor, Joe, put this info on the Obama page. Joe didn't re-read the whole 'Bama article. Joe simply quickly saw a reasonable placement and popped it in there, figuring that that page's keepers would eventually see to its best placement elsewhere, if necessary, or even its entire removal. (Thereafter another editor added stuff to the information, by the way; but, as of yet, no-one has found a better placement for it.) But--spurious?
1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine: spurious poems attributed to Shakespeare.
2. Not trustworthy; dubious or fallacious: spurious reasoning; a spurious justification.
Well, here's the def to yet another word.
noun. A person who demonstrates an exaggerated conformity or propriety, especially in an irritatingly arrogant or smug manner.--- Amer. Her.
;~) <..that's a wink!>-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Pending talkpage discussion, I've tentatively restored content that was recently removed from the article: the sentence dealing with the R's political family, found in the section dealing with his heritage. Related articles about notable families are linked to in biographies on WP. Eg, cf.:
As an aside, I believe what the guidelines disapprove of is belabored genealogical musing in biographies. Eg, perhaps a portion of the following info would more properly fit in a sub-article of some kind?
Main article: Roosevelt family.
"Roosevelt often described his ancestry as "half Irish and half Dutch."[6] The Roosevelt family, colonists of Dutch origin, had been in New York since the mid-17th century. Roosevelt was born into considerable wealth, for the family by the 19th century had grown in wealth, power, and influence from the profits of several businesses, including hardware and plate-glass importing. The family was strongly Democratic in its political affiliation until the mid-1850s, and then joined the new Republican Party. Theodore's father, known in the family as "Thee", was a New York City philanthropist, merchant, and partner in the family glass-importing firm Roosevelt and Son. "Father," as the children called him, was an ardent Unionist, a prominent supporter of Abraham Lincoln and the Union effort during the American Civil War. His mother Martha "Mittie" Bulloch was a Southern belle from a slave-owning family in Roswell, Georgia, and she maintained Confederate sympathies. Mittie's brother, Theodore's uncle, James Dunwoody Bulloch, was a United States Navy officer who became a Confederate admiral and naval procurement officer and secret agent in Britain. Another uncle, Irvine Bulloch, was a midshipman on the Confederate raider CSS Alabama; both remained in England after the war.[7]
Theodore Roosevelt was distantly related by birth to the 32nd president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (they were fifth cousins), and he was the uncle of Franklin D. Roosevelt's wife, Eleanor Roosevelt.
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 06:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 06:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Claims made which are not specifically made by a reliable source about genealogy do not belong in any BLP. In the case at hand, the sources do not make the claims made. Posted at WP:BLP/N. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
(The WP article on the clan Kimball belonged to is Kimball–Snow–Woolley family.) In any case--at least in my opinion--... "Through his aunt Helen Mar Kimball, he was a nephew of Joseph Smith, Jr..
Early life. Kimball was born in Salt Lake City, Utah Territory to Andrew Kimball and Olive Woolley, sister of Mormon pioneer and eventual Mormon fundamentalist John W. Woolley. When Spencer was three, his father was called to preside as president of the St. Joseph stake and his family relocated to the town of Thatcher in southeastern Arizona.
I'll try to source question below.
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
User Collect, I've made an edit (here) that downplays the whole "Leading family in Mormondom" aspect and just puts in a link at "Romneys' ancestors"--which might at least address some of the inherent synth problems, perhaps?-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 00:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
“ | Known for being frugal to a fault, Romney does not seem to particularly relish spending his fortune. He likes data, and his piles of dollars seem to be mainly markers to keep score of his success. | ” |
— New York magazine, January 2012 [1] |
I don't know if my own opinion of this recent quote from noted essayist Frank Rich (on right margin) is that it should be considered notable qua opinion or else considered notable qua a source for the subject's legendary thrift or else should be considered not to be notable.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 17:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)