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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I edited the positions section to reflect the fact that Mitt Romney routinely flip flops and that his true positions, if in fact he holds any, are unknown.
This page hs been subjected to heavy vandalism and should be protected, as Hillary Clinton's is, being a presidential candidate. To protect the integrity of the electoral system this artcle should be changed to protected status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.192.87 ( talk) 01:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is hopeless without a picture, especially considering his status as a viable candidate for the 2008 elections. S. Stallings 02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
That Picture is terrible.
So, looking at the actual copyright notice from the mass.gov website (item 3) [1], I question the claim that these images are meant to be in the public domain. That page seems to be referring to government documents and text of government proceedings that are part of the public record (it doesn't use the terms "public domain" like the image uploader claims (see, for example Image:RomneyFreeRally.jpg). In fact, the site's notice goes on to state that "With respect to material copyrighted by the Commonwealth, including the design, layout, and other features of Mass.Gov, the Commonwealth forbids any copying or use other than "fair use" under the Copyright Act." I don't think we have a fair use claim here since free images are easily obtained (anyone can take a free photo of him at a public event). I'm concerned as to the true copyright status of these images. -- ZimZalaBim ( talk) 18:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"Fair use" includes activities such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research, and other related activities
Best thing to do it to check with romney's office. Manytimes they release the copyrights to the images once they are posted on their public websites. Verbal or written permisson would suffice.-- 192.80.65.234 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There was an issue about this a while back. The copyright status was unclear so I called the Romney's office (phone number was on his website). I talked to a person that told me that all of the photos on their site were released into the public domain for unrestricted use. Should we have somebody else call to verify their status?-- Redsox777 21:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
If they release the copyright to the images, what is the issue?-- Michael16G 13:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone editing from an IP address has been reverting my recent edit on the In-state tuition section. I'm up to two reverts, so I wanted others to weigh in. According to the source article in the Boston Globe the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation (according to the Globe a non-partisan, non-profit group that did not issue an opinion on the bill) conducted a study that showed that there would be a net gain to MA taxpayers if the bill were to become law. The article includes a quote from a group that opposed the bill (thus, making it partisan in this case): "Robert Casimiro -- who heads the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform, which opposes the bill -- disputed the conclusions and said he believes that the arrival of hundreds of undocumented immigrant students would have plenty of costs for the state, both at instititions of higher education and in general. "The classes I have attended [at Massasoit Community College] are filled to capacity; they would have to open new classes, and that costs money,"" Note the words "I believe." He did not offer any evidence to challenge the conclusions of the study.
My concerns with the edits by 65.96.5.43 are as follows:
Thanks.-- Notmyrealname 03:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You raise a good point. Casimiro doesn't refute anything. He just disagrees. It seems the word is now off the page. It should't return as it is not the correct term.-- Michael16G 02:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but why not mention the disagreement over the study? Its in the same article used to source the study.-- Waverider5 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"Romney served for 30 months as a Mormon missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in France." myclob 23:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Also:
"He is also an Eagle Scout." does not belong under Education. myclob 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It does belong in this section because the missionary work occured during this time frame. I would leave the paragraph as is, but consider changing the title of the section from "Education" to "Early Life."-- Michael16G 02:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This section needs to be revamped. More than half of the section is related to initiatives that he proposed but that were never passed, and more space is taken up with his opinions about national policies that he can do nothing about. The relevant info are the metrics that show performance of education in the state during his tenure. Is it necessary to have a picture of him touting the $100 laptop proposal if nothing ever came of it? The casual reader would likely get the impression that this is something that actually happened. Notmyrealname 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"He also serves as the chairman of the Republican Governors Association and honorary chairman of the Commonwealth Political Action Committee.[2]"
Does anyone care? I mean this is his pack, and so I would assume he serves as charman...
I propose, if you agree, you just remove... That's how it should always work. One person proposes, and another person seconds it, by romoving it... A third person can change it back, if they don't like it, unless you make a good argument here, to stop the 2nd person from doing it...
myclob 23:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
"He also achieved prominence as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah"
Does someone ever "achieve prominence"? How does one go abotu achieving promince. Is that a sticker? It does not belong in this article. It is fluffy. If he achieved promince, he did it when he ran against Ted Kennedy. I don't think anyone really cares who runs the olympics. Sure there probably pretty cool people, but no one really "achieves prominence" from it. Take out prominince, or say that he achieved prominence by almost beating Kennedy... myclob 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Romney's work at Bain Capital and his turnarund at Bain & Company is more noteworth than his association with his PAC or the RGA at this point. Shouldnt this go in the lead section in place of the RGA and PAC references? Also, Romney never ran against John Kerry.-- Michael16G 02:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I am glad we have some agreement. I think his buisness career deserves a sentence in the lead. Also, is Romney still the chair of the RGA? He obviously cant continue in the post since he will no longer be a sitting governor in a few weeks.-- Michael16G 04:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a sentence at the top about his buisness career:
"Romney is the former CEO of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm, and the co-founder of Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm."-- Sierraonfire 01:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"At BCG Romney worked with recent MIT graduate and future Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[5]"
This is under business, but does not really mean anything to Romney's business career. Take it out and put it under trivia or somewhere else. myclob 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems fine. It fits into the time line. Its an interesing fact, and not distracting.-- Michael16G 02:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There are portions of the article that read less like an encyclopedia and more like a promotional piece. While carefully guarding content for accuracy and NPOV by Romney supporters is fine, a review of the discussion page (here and in archive) lists numerous comments that much of the content sounds like campaign literature. Without addressing this the article risks reposting of the advertising banner reading:
"To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, this article or section may require cleanup. This article or section reads like an advertisement. Please discuss this issue on the talk page. Editing help is available. Blatant advertising can be marked for speedy deletion."
19:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
We should continue converting the links to footnotes and try to replace press releases with other sources where they are needed. Article is in good shape now, but will need to be carefully expanded when he decides to run for president.-- Waverider5 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Per everybody's suggestions, I am working on the long, thankless task of converting the links to footnotes. The help of others is greatly appreciated.-- Michael16G 15:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I will preface this by saying I rarily vote as I tend to be a cynic when it comes to the moral credibility of either main party, most tributary parties, and most politicians in general. To be arguing whether this page is more promotional or encyclopedic in comparison to the Obama page is outright farce. He's being referred to as the "Everyman", amongst numerous other promotional terms and phrases. The hypocrisy that this website brands itself neutral is insane.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 ( talk • contribs) February 12, 2007
I was surprised to read no mention of Gov. Romney serving his country in the armed forces. Is this the case, or is it left out? He seems the age that he would have qualified for the draft, or could have enlisted for active service during he Vietnam war. Any info on this subject? 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Governor Romney finished his undergraduate degree from BYU in 1971, and received his MBA in 1975. The earliest he likely matriculated at HBS would have been September 1973. In this period U.S. deployment was at record high (troop reducation as a part of Vietnamization began in 1972, and the Selective Service draft did not end until end of year '73), this should have left him eligble for the draft. 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. What's your point? Looks like he didn't get drafted.-- Sierraonfire 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
i would say he is on to a possible draft dodge despite Romney's swagger and posturing photo ops with men and women who DID serve. 68.163.211.56 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I see no info to back up any of these claims. Saying that "Despite the fact" he graduated college, he didnt sign up for the military, doesnt actually point out any information. The information on this topic is of signifigance is his draft status, as it was mandatory to sign up for the draft. It was not maditory to sign up for the army.-- Megatropolis 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to popular belief, even if you registered and were eligible for the Vietnam draft for the entire period of the war, your chances of being called were still only 53% (see http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm). It is highly speculative to say that since he didn't serve he must have been a draft dodger. - Adas, January 2007
With regard to the math (above) that Governor Romney's earliest matriclulation date at HBS would have been September 1973 is just plain incorrect. A closer reading of the article shows that he simultaneously attended Harvard Law School (a 3 year program for the JD degree) and Harvard Business School (a 2 year program for an MBA). At that time, this was offered as a combined 4-year academic program by Harvard, which would place him as entering the joint JD/MBA program at Harvard in September 1971. Therefore, the claim that there are unaccounted-for years is incorrect. - BizJet 10 January 07
So why is this continually added back? I have to ask the relevance of mentioning he didn't, because it seems like it's being added to make some sort of point, which isn't really thought of highly. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Several editors have deleted the following addition to the trivia section: *Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, had five wives. [1]
The editors have offered the following reasons:
Now, a quick Google check for Romney Grandfather Polygamy (for instance) yields 962 hits. This fact has been reported in Slate, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the National Review, and other established media of every stripe and persuasion. Romney himself frequently jokes about the topic, as noted in the Slate article cited in the entry. As several of the articles note, it is pertinent in that Romney has taken a very public political stand defending what he terms "traditional marriage," yet his own family (a very prominent one in early LDS history), engaged in a very different tradition. This page mentions other Romney relatives, including details about the political career of his father. I hope we don't have to get to the point of citing Wikipedia policy of what is "encyclopedic" or the rules about "other pages do/do not do this so ...", but the rules argue for inclusion. In the spirit of assuming good faith, I hope that this isn't a matter of editors not wanting to include information that isn't to their liking. Notmyrealname 03:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Did Romney know this guy? When was this Miles Park Romney born? When did he die? I don't buy your argument that whatever a relative did influences Romney's views on marriage. Obviously close realtives do have a impact on people. If, say, Romney's father was a polygamist, I am sure that it would have a big impact. But since it is a great grandfather my guess is that whatever he did would have zero impact on Romney. Personally I know nothing about my great-grandfather because he died before I was born. His life has no influence on my own. It would be intersting to see the dates of Miles Park Romney's life to see if he was alive during Romney's childhood. As for the asertion that Romney's family does not engage in "traditonal marriage" I strongly disagree. This page notes that Romney has been married to his wife since 1969. He has never been divorced (as far as I can tell). Rommey has been married to one (not many) woman (not a man) for 37 years. Seems pretty "traditional" to me.-- Redsox777 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
http://www.wargs.com/political/romney.html
Well, we seem to have a serious disagreement here. The above 3 editors don't think it's worth mentioning in the article (trivia section or elsewhere), yet the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Boston Globe, the National Review, among others all do. Romney himself frequently jokes that "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman." Obviously, he does not endorse polygamy, but he is acknowledging that the practice has a connection to his faith and his family history. Romney has many blood relatives as a result of this. The elder Romney was an important figure in the early LDS church. If Miles Romney had been Hitler (to borrow from Myclob) or a US president, don't you think that would bear mentioning? Again, it comes down to the fact that many major media (on the right, left, and middle) see this as appropriate. This means that this fact merits inclusion on this page. Where? Well, if not in a trivia section, then I propose either in the gay marriage section or his family section. Notmyrealname 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here are three references from mainstream political sources that make note of the connection: [2], [3], [4].
And from our very own page: "Marriage is not an evolving paradigm," said Romney, "but is a fundamental and universal social institution." Yet, his own family history shows otherwise. Notmyrealname 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Romney's actions as Governor with regards to gay marriage have nothing to do with whatever his great grandfather did. Any attempts to manifest a connection are not only ridiculous, but not rooted in fact or reality. You have no basis to validate these claims. Its blatant and outlandish POV. Romney's actions (married to one woman his entire adult life) do not in anyway conflict with his political views on the definition or marriage. Attempts to paint Romney as some type of hypocrite regarding his traditional definition of marriage because of the actions of a man that was dead and buried long before his time are absurd.-- Sierraonfire 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, there have been a number of comparisons to the actions of other politicians (Bush and his grandfather, Schwarzenegger and his father, Cheney and his daughter). I dont think that the actions of these individuals have anything to do with the political careers of their relatives. Its is however also worth noting that the politicans in question knew all of these realtives. These are close realtives. Bush grew up with his grandfather, Schwarzenegger knew his father, Cheney raised his daughter. For those that are making these comparisons to Romney, let me repeat the facts I had previously posted about Miles Rommey: He was born in 1843 and died in 1904. Not only did he die over 40 years before Mitt Romney's birth, but he actually died before Romney's father was even born. These are not valid comparisons.-- Sierraonfire 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a fairly decent concensus that this isn't relevant to an encyclopedia article. I tend to agree. What we have here is a concerted effort by a single user (Notmyrealname) to keep it in. By the opposition is pretty clear. It should be REMOVED.-- Velvet elvis81 06:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me rephrase. I was not claiming you were acting in bad faith--merely that this was one user vs. three or four. I did not notice the other user's agreement with you. I think outside comment is a good idea. That said, I've had nothing to do with this page as far as creation/editing, so count me one outsider vote against putting it in.-- Velvet elvis81 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not related to any part of Romney's life, public or private. It has no place in an encyclopedia entry and should not be included on this page at this time. If Romney's political foes make this an issue in the 2008 election, then an argument could be made that the controvesy would have a place in the 2008 presidential section.-- Megatropolis 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems interesting to me, and I could see it being included -- but not under the Gay Rights section. Perhaps it would fit better under his early life or something like that. What a man did before 1904 should not be implicated in the political decisions of his descendants -- but it does strike me as a cool thing to know, and as previously mentioned Wikipedia has a bias towards inclusion. So it makes sense to include it.
Considering the context of the times we live in, the contemporary issues of the day, I ask you, which is more relevant: The fact that Mitt Romney's great-grandfather, dead four decades before he lived and even dead before his father lived, was a polygamist, or the fact that Barack Obama's father, though only alive until he was two, was Muslim, whether devout at the time or not, along with his step-father being Muslim, and he being educated for two or so years, in his formative years, in a majority Muslim state, at a Muslim school? At the Obama page, any connections to his Muslim heritage are not available, and, from the talk page, appear to be removed, with repugnant indignance, citing its irrelevance and even nefarious nature were it included. How could Romney's great-grandfather's backward marital practices that are of no way in the norm in the U.S. today, nor ever were, and in no way relates to a trying issue of the day be of import, encyclopedically, if Obama's direct Muslim roots, coming from his father and step-father, as well as some of his education are not of import encyclopedically, especially given the nature of global affairs today? That is obviously a rhetorical question. You all know the answer. You all also know the meaning of the word hypocrisy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 ( talk • contribs) February 12, 2007
Obviously the fact that he is from a polygamist sect is relevant to the article, folks!!! Not2plato 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
First it was "Mormon", then it was "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", then it was "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)" and now it's "Christian (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".
Christian is unncessary and doesn't follow the standard on other articles; hardly any other bios have Christian and then the denomination in brackets. Christian is inferred by listing a Christian denomination. I'm reverting Mitt's back to "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)". Tell me what you think. Antley 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
"Mormon" is slang, a nickname and should not be used at all in professional literature, with the possible exception of the name in brackets for recognition purposes. The term Christian is appropriate as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints profess to follow Christ. Specifying a specific denomination can be helpful for clarity purposes. Dansen926 13:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Does this really belong as the 2nd sentense in his biography? Is this more important than who his dad is? Do we mention any other 2008 presidential candidates great-great grandfather's?
It is a fact that a good percentage of people in America would not support a Mormon president. And so it would make sense, of enemies of Romney's to beat it over our heads over and over again that Romney is a a Mormon. I'm not saying that we should ignore it, but how many times does Joseph Lieberman's article mention that he is Jewish? Lets pretend to be fair.
myclob 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Truth be told, Wikipedia or not, the American public will sooner or later find out all about PP and his connection to MR. Moreover, PP is a notable historical figure and Wikipedia is not a political advocacy or publicity site. So far as Joseph Lieberman goes, I'm not aware that he has any famous ancestors. Gwen Gale 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The PP reference does seem relavent as part of the bio and deserves to remain where it is. 68.48.48.129 16:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Look at Rudy Giuliani's page. His religion is not mentioned. Why should Romney's? myclob 17:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This is article is less profesional than the national enquirer. In order to even pretend like this article is objective, it should have similar numbers for References to Romney's religion as other 2008 candidates. 70.131.75.59 00:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Giuliani's religion is listed on the "infobox" on his page. At least today's version -- Yellowdesk 04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Romney made it a public topic when he got into tiff about it with 1040WHO AM radio host Jan Mickelson. GrEp 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The Associated Press just ran a piece called Romney family tree has polygamy branch. This is a well documented fact, and is not disputed by Mitt or anyone else. Mitt often jokes about polygamy. Mitt's father was born in Mexico as a result of his family having to flee the country because of their polygamy. Mitt has a lot of relatives as a result of this. I don't think this should necessarily have an entire section, but there really should be some mention of this, as there has been in the mainstream press across the ideological spectrum. Notmyrealname 02:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Two citations now support this item. I would say, editors may wish to find yet another with a more neutral title than either. Nonetheless, I believe this item meets WP:BLP along with WP:NPOV. Gwen Gale 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this section should be deleted. The article mentions plenty of times that Romney is a member of the LDS church and there are ample links to the Wikipedia article concerning the LDS church. This article is about Romney, not the church. Thus, a biased, one-and-a-half-sentence summary of the Church is not fitting. "...Romney belongs to a religion about which many Americans know relatively little [no citation]. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is perhaps the most secretive of all the major religious denominations, and keeps its financial holdings, estimated to be over $30 billion dollars, secret, and does not allow persons who are not members in good standing to visit its temples or witness its many ceremonies [no citation]." At least this sentence should be removed, if not the entire section. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
206.251.236.130 (
talk •
contribs).
At least the following three portions of the Religion section do not meet a NPOV standard:
1. The parenthetical in this sentence: "The perceived secretiveness and 'clannishness' of the LDS church (for example, non-LDS members are not allowed to attend temple services, including weddings) is a significant hindrance to many in voting for a Mormon presidential candidate, as is the hierarchical and authoritarian structure of the church[56]." This portion--"for example, non-LDS members are not allowed to attend temple services, including weddings"--is not supported by the citation. It is misleading because the language of this sentence and the sentence prior to it is taken from the cited PBS documentary web page, while the parenthetical portion is not in that page. The author here is guessing as to the motivations of those who responded to a poll. Indeed, the reasons given by people polled are already in the sentence (e.g. secretive and authoritarian), but nothing about temples and weddings is listed.
2. This sentence: "John F. Kennedy was able to overcome similar concerns over Papal authority which burdened his campaign; however, the Romney campaign may have even more difficulty with this, as the LDS church sees its president not only as the ultimate spiritual authority, but also as a prophet of God.[57]." The citation for this is an opinion piece. It is one person's opinion (not based on any poll) as to a possible future problem--LDS belief in a prophet--for the Romney campaign. This is not encyclopedic.
3. This sentence: "However, his religious affiliation provides benefits as well: The church has significant financial and organizational resources that the Romney campaign has already made efforts to tap.[58]." The citation here is a Boston Globe piece published prior to many of the facts of this incident being fleshed out. There is no evidence that the Romney campaign made efforts to tap significant financial and organizational resources of the Church. It is clear that members of the LDS church have donated to Romney's campaign, but it has been made repeatedly clear that the LDS Church is party and candidate neutral and that institutional resources have not gone to Romney's campaign. The whole notion of Romney benefiting from the Church directly (or indirectly by use of Church resources such as organizational lists) has been debunked and gone away. It was based upon one informal meeting between people who knew each other prior to this incident and upon one email from a person associated with the BYU Business School who tried to solicit support for Romney from Alumni of the Business School. This sentence and a citation to this story ignores all of these facts. Furthermore, the sentence explicitly states that what the Boston Globe article falsely implies (Romney is seeking financial and organizational resources from the Church) is a benefit of Romney's religious affiliation. In other words, the tone of this paragraph is this: the negatives of Romney's religious affiliation are X, Y and Z, but the positives of Romney's religious affiliation are that Romney may illegally receive financial and organizational benefits from the Church, as he has already tried.
The three portions are biased, so I am removing them. I suggest removing the entire section as it is not enclyclopedic since it provides only negative views of the Church. Further, there is a wikipedia article devouted to Romney's campaign, to which this section is much more applicable. It does not belong in an article about Mitt Romney, the individual. Unless there is objection for good reason, I will move this section to the article dealing with Romney's campaign for President. Tommysnow 06:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the "trivia" section in order to make the article conform with the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. If any of the information in that section is not trivia, please add it to the appropriate section. Fagles 15:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
After noticing that Students Against Mitt was removed as "inappropriate", I just removed all these unofficial, pro-Romney sites (see below). I may be wrong, but they appear to violate WP:EL, as well as WP:NPOV#Undue weight. schi talk 23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Romney Sites - National
Romney Sites - By State
Romney Sites - By Organization
Great point about the Massachusett's Governor's web site changing soon. This is a significant month for thoroughly reviewing it for information. - Yellowdesk 06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
http://romney-press-releases.blogspot.com/
Again, this cracks me up. The Obama site is a veritable media lovefest. If you truly believed that the sources from which the Obama information is gleaned are neutral, you would have to simply throw your hands up in praise and wholeheartedly nominate him for Emporer of the Universe, with no reservations. Yet this article, which hardly has the "rah-rah" atmosphere of the Obama article needs to avoid pro-Romney sourcing! I am plain speaking:anyone, and I mean anyone, who would even dare to suggest that Wikipedia truly strives to be neutral rather than a Leftist slanted perspective on the world is either truly foolish our and outright liar of low character. And I cannot stand Liberals or Conservatives, from a purely political standpoint. What.A.Joke.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 ( talk • contribs) February 12, 2007
... Barak Obama's article is featured, and I don't see that it is better than this article... myclob 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I presume you're aiming for a Featured article, but you might as well eventually seek a review for the status of "Good Article" as a way-station toward "Featured."
But first, fully responding to the existing peer review is a next step. (For example, I haven't converted any web links to foot notes in more than a month).
See Wikipedia:What is a featured article. In-line citations are the biggest technical step.
Less technically, one of the requirements is not having editors that discourage evaluators (who are volunteers, just like any other editor), and that are willing to take advice, and editors that willing to allow the article to change in light of the evaluations recieved. Two other evaluators decided not to get involved in the peer review, after one Mitt Romney status-quo-defender, Michael16G, basically told the first evaluator to keep her opinions to herself. (I think it is no coincidence that that editor, Michael16G, has fewer than 35 edits that are not related to Romney over the past year; there are more than five other editors that have edit histories that show they only edit the Romney page. Partisan is a reasonable description for single issue editors.) You can see the peer review here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Mitt Romney.
You can bet that a Featured Article review will be a good bit more thorough than the "peer review." As I have said in other places, there are a lot of actions of Romney that do not get a balanced explanation, as Romney not only had proposed many things (rhetoric) that the legislature declined to take up, and the reasons for not taking them up, or for over-riding a veto are unexplained in the article, but further, the article fails to comprehend that any bill passed and signed into law is a joint effort between Romney and the legislature and not all Romney's. Furthermore, Romney, as head of a state is responsible for numerous actions, decisions, personnel, nominations and the like that are un-remarked upon a balanced and encyclopedic manner in the article. It could be that there needs to be an article entitled "Mitt Romney Governorship" to handle the details, similar to Arnold_Schwarzenegger's sub-article Political_career_of_Arnold_Schwarzenegger, or perhaps something like Bill Clinton's sub-article: Clinton_Administration.
In relation to the Obama article, it fails to be a comparable article to the Mitt Romney article, in that the life of Obama has no occasion where he has actually been in charge of something, so there's nothing to write about for Obama but his rhetoric and his personal life history; this is not the case for Romney, and I think the Clinton or Schwarzenegger examples are what you should be aiming for, with the implication that some expanded sub-articles may be necessary to do the topic justice, and earn "Featured Article" status. - Yellowdesk 06:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
(Pardon me, I meant to put this here instead of below....please forgive my mistake) ^LMAO^ ....thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 ( talk • contribs) February 12, 2007
I am trying to update the links so they conform with wiki style sheets, and am having problems with this link...
The link comes after this statement:
Romney told the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts (a Republican gay-rights group) that he did not support same-sex marriage or civil unions, but would fight discrimination against gays and lesbians.
The link has nothing to do with 2002, Log Cabin Republicans, or the "fight discrimination against gays and lesbians"
/\ LMAO /\—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 ( talk • contribs) February 12, 2007
Rimer, Sara. "Perfect Anti-Kennedy' Opposes the Senator." The New York Times, October 25, 1994. myclob 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I left it in, but:
doesn't look official to me. Flatterworld 04:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
A link has been added to an article ( Mormons Against Romney) about a "group" of LDS church members that opposes Mitt Romney. The article is actually a thinly veiled promotion of what appears to be a personal blog site. [6] (I think the article should be deleted, but that's another issue) I can handle a link to a site that may not support Romney, as long as the content of the site is relevant to the main article and the source is both reputable and authoritative. That's going to exclude just about every blog, especially this one. It's not very well written and uses tricks such as sock puppet links like this [7] to appear as though this movement has a larger following than it probably does. It wrongfully features copyrighted material (the trumpeting angel image is a copyrighted trademark of the LDS church), and makes implications against Mitt Romney that border on being libelous, which in a worst case scenario could present a legal liability to Wikipedia if we are seen as promoting a site like this.
So enough ranting from me. People are entitled to their opinion, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog directory. I'm deleting this link and I think we should delete any similar links that pop up. -- Atomicskier 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Some cites to sources/articles that should be incorporated into the article later: (feel free to add your own too schi talk 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC))
This article reads like campaign literature. Tuviya 19:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd also suggest limiting the images. These all seem like highly polished campaign photos straight out of a marketing brochure. - ZimZalaBim ( talk) 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The pictures are from his offical website. They are free images and more than appropriate for this page. The pages does not sound like campagn literature. It is sourced, valid and balanced. It is a long article because he is a potential presidential candiate, not just a regular governor.-- Michael16G 03:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
By asserting that the page reads like campaign literature because it is "too long" doesn't change my opinion. You have not advanced any evidence to back up your theory. As for the pictures, if the copyrights have been released by his office then they are free images and are suitable for wikipedia. If you think there is a conflict you should take some initiative and contact the presumed copyright holder (in this case, Romney's photo office) rather than making guesses.-- Michael16G 13:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added a POV tag to this article due to a report on the Wikipedia Neutrality Project. Please discuss the POV problems here, and please do not remove the tags until the issues have been resolved, and when you do, please leave a note on the WNP request on it so we know to close the request.
The rationale for the report which was filed is as follows:
“ | Concern, as expressed on Talk: Mitt Romney, that article reads too much like campaign literature. 3rd party review for neutrality would be helpful. -- ZimZalaBim ( talk) 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | ” |
On the behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed the article and made some minor textual edits that could be percieved as opinionated in favor of the subject. There is some room to develop the alternate positions to some of his controversial statements, opinions, and actions. The only specific problem that I could find was the Tar Baby issue. The use of the definition is an argument in favor of Romney's postion. It should be referenced for the reader, but unless it was used by a member of the debate, it should be excluded from the actual article, or developed in it's own article. Otherwise, I think ZimZalaBim could clarify the issues that lead to a conclusion of biased content.
As a consequence of the move of the Governorship section's text to the Governorship of Mitt Romney article, I propose that the POV tag be taken off in several days, from the Mitt Romney page, since the past concern has primarily been about the governorship period, assuming no editor undoes the move. I leave it to others to decide if Governorship of Mitt Romney is in need of the tag, mindful of the comments immediately above. Comments invited. -- Yellowdesk 16:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems like the entire article is a glowing management bio. It is not neutral because it talks all about his successes in a glowing way.
Why does the article claim that he is a "leading candidate?" The citation (citation 2) merely links to his declaration of running for president. This doesn't qualify as a souce that backs up a TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE assumption that he is somehow "leading." Find a better source or remove the lie.
The quote ("Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians") the article attributes to an interview, with a link to this National Review article, does not seem to be an interview. The National Review article sounds to me like he's giving a speech. I tried to Google around and found a few other articles/blog posts that also called it an interview, but I also found this Christian Coalition page that said it was from his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I searched the Senate Judiciary Committee's website and could only find this testimony by Romney. Any ideas? I could be wrong, it might have been an interview, but it certainly didn't sound like one to me. I suppose it isn't super-critical that we properly characterize the source of the quote, but I thought would provide an explanation for why I removed the "interview" characterization. schi talk 01:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You are right. Looks like the author took the quote from testimony. Nice catch.-- Michael16G 03:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow - a whole lot of apparent single purpose accounts have sprung up editing here:
Its like this guy is running for President or something.... -- ZimZalaBim ( talk) 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This section needs a little trimming and toning down of language. Right now it reads like a campaign brochure. Do we really need to quote people saying they "needed a white knight?" Do we need to quote three people who say he did a great job? Does Pres. Bush saying you did "a heckuva job" (sorry, "fabulous") really sound like a compliment these days? Besides, what else are these people going to say? Let's get rid of language like "the event needed new leadership and they launched a search." Let's also strike language like "He was charged with restoring faith in the beleaguered event, and rescuing the Olympics from failure." I've started with some obvious trims. Let's just stick with the basics here. This isn't the place to tell a story with drama. Notmyrealname 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, one of the SPAs just reverted my attempts to trim and remove some of the puffery from this article, claiming they were "mass deletions" [8]. (Sigh). Ok, so let's discuss my recent good faith edits:
Please explain why these edits make the article worse. This is an encyclopedia, and this article should provide biographical content about the subject. Please stop trying to block attempts to ensure neutrality in its treatment of the subject. -- ZimZalaBim ( talk) 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What should we do with the crime section? Tuviya says that it was attributing things to Romney that couldn't be backed up. This is a reasonable criticism. However, politicians usually claim credit when crime goes down and get blamed when it goes up. I think it's reasonable to assign some responsability to the person at the top when they've been in office for several years.
This is how the crime section was previously worded:
I agree that the section could be improved, notably by shortening it, and giving some context (e.g. comparing MA crime stats to US crime stats). However, I think it does give a useful comparison by showing the difference between the declining crime rate and the much farther drop in arrest rates. This should be reworded, however, to make clear that they show different things. I'm afraid we're throwing the good out with the bad. Notmyrealname 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There are a few instances in the article where it says Romney signed such-and-such legislation -- I am not intimately familiar with how things are done in the Massachusetts legislature, but my initial reaction (which appears to be confirmed by this article) is that it is routine for the governor to sign legislation that is passed by the legislature. I'm sure the implication is that the governor was in some way responsible - or at least more so than the legislature - for these laws, but, for example in the "Military and veterans' benefits" section, it's not at all clear that he was. Can someone clarify? Generally, and in line with the discussion in the above section, I'd like to see some clearer distinctions between what Romney has specifically done, as opposed to what happened in the legislature during his term. schi talk 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It says he wrote and filed the bill. That means he authored the legisaltion. Its not the "legislature's work." They worked togeather on the issue of veterans benifits.-- Redsox777 21:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah but how many amendments were there, and what political effort and horsetrading or rhetoric was involved in getting the legilature's agreement. They were not supine in the process. This is the perspective that the article is lacking: that it is always necessary for the Governor to collaborate with the legislature if his rhetoric is to be turned into law, regulation and policy. As for 216.236.252.234's claim that it was not routine for Romney to sign an enacted bill, I would call that an unsourced and speculative statement awaiting a citation to an analysis of enacted bills not signed. -- Yellowdesk 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The section mentions that Romney and the legislature worked together. If you think that it is important to expand on "working together" then find to info to prove the "horsetrading". The sources provided do not mention Romney sending the legislation back to the legislature with any amendments, so you can cross that off the list.-- Redsox777 02:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
In this diff, anonymous IP address 216.236.252.234 reverted my changes, claiming that my edit disrupted chronology. I'm going to revert, as my changes were not limited to chronological order and I would rather not see them lost without discussing their merits. As for chronology, this is how my edit presented the events:
I feel this is better than the revert. Thoughts? schi talk 21:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I dont think this is a better format. Keep in mind we are in the "Governorship" section. Governorship goes first, obviously. Your edits have scrambled the order of his progession on the issue. You have mixed up the time line and format that has been used in other sections. You also deleted his explanation for his "evolution" on the issue. I dont see the wisdom behind this reorganization.--
Redsox777 21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The current organization is good. It plots a chronological course of his stance. Making a "political views" section creates a disconnect between views and actions. His actions regarding abortion as Governor, the moratrium on abortion legislation and the veto of the emergency contraception bill, and his political views, his views on Roe v. Wade, would have to be seperated. It doesn't make much sense to do this. All the info is relevent to his views as a politican and governor. I dont think it needs to be changed.-- Michael16G 00:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous IP address 216.236.252.234 just reverted my edits to the business section.
My edits read as follows: After graduating from Harvard Business School, Romney went to work for the Boston Consulting Group, where he had been a summer intern in 1974. [2] From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., a Boston-based management consulting firm. In 1984, Romney left the company to co-found Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm. [3]
In 1990 Romney returned to Bain & Company as CEO to manage the company through a period of financial turmoil. [4]
Following his year at Bain & Company, Romney returned to Bain Capital.
The revised edits read like this:
After graduating from Harvard Business School, Romney went to work for the Boston Consulting Group, where he had been a summer intern in 1974. [5] From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., a Boston-based management consulting firm. In 1984, Romney left the company to co-found Bain Capital, which quickly became a highly successful private equity investment firm. [6]
In 1990 Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections. [4]
Following his year at Bain & Company, Romney returned to Bain Capital. During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital's average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent. [4] During Romney's tenure, the firm founded, acquired or invested in hundreds of companies including Staples Inc., Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Brookstone, Domino's, Sealy and The Sports Authority. [14] Romney left Bain Capital in 1998 to head the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games.
The revised edits are very close in language to the magazine articles that they cite, and are not written in a NPOV encyclopedic style. I tried to remove value-laden language like "quickly became a highly successful private equity firm." Why not just call it a private equity firm? Why say that he was asked to return to lead it out of financial collapse? This is a little too much color. What the heck is an "annual internalized rate of return" and why should we care? How do we know that this can be attributed to Romney? Maybe the market was booming in general? Maybe he had really good employees? People can read the company links to find out more. Let's stick with where he worked and when. I'll leave it to others to change this. Notmyrealname 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The fluff language needs to go, but the preformance of the buisness is relevent to his business career. The results of a company that he founded and lead should be mentioned in his business section. The language in the recent edit provides a statement of fact, not an endorsement of his leaderhsip as you imply. You also removed the info about the situation at Bain and Company and its reveral of fortune. This should also be noted because it reflects the work that he did there. Its encyclopedic fact and info about his time in business.-- Redsox777 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, what where his early business deals? Romney in his speech before Iowans for taxpayer relief detailed it involved jet setting around Asia, but gave no more information. Which governments and companies did he do business with? GrEp 21:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
= Controversy
Now that some time has passed, I think we need to review whether this belongs on this page. If we keep it, do we really need to devote so much space? In the end, Romney denied the guy a police escort. Who cares? Does this really belong on Romney's bio page? Notmyrealname 03:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Its just as important as the "tar baby" and "undocumented workers" controversies. We should either keep all or delete them all.-- Michael16G 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe this article is the longest US gubernatorial article on wikipedia. The article will get longer as the Presidential campaign continues.
Isn't it time to push the governor's administration and political detail into a separate article, relieving the Biography of items that are not biography at all?
I propose the followinging titles, with the aim that others might come up with better titles. Add yours below with signature: ~~~ --
Yellowdesk 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I would much prefer we just cull the existing article to make it manageable rather than devoting an entirely new article to his administration. Tuviya 05:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Intersting suggestion. The article is in fine shape and should not be shortend for the sake of being shortend. That being said I expect this article to grow if he runs for president. It may get really long at that point. I think we should leave it as is, and make the call on this one if it gets too long once the presidential section grows.-- Michael16G 13:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Section and related articles in two presidential biographies.
Bill Clinton#Presidency, 1993-2001
Bill Clinton#The Lewinsky scandal
Bill Clinton#Impeachment trial in the Senate
Bill Clinton#Administrative controversy
Bill Clinton#Campaign finance and the pardon controversy
Bill Clinton#Willey and Broaddrick allegations
Bill Clinton#Humanitarian work
George W. Bush#Domestic policy
George W. Bush#Hurricane Katrina
I wouldn't put the Romney administration in the catagorey of the Bush and Clinton administration. It doesn't need to be seperated from Romney's page. The Governorship section shouldn't expand since he will be leaving office so there shouldn't be a need to break it off from his bio.-- Redsox777 02:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
An "assesment" or an "analysis" of Romney's term is irrelevent for this page. The inclusion of opinionated reviews of Romney's term in office violate wiki guidelines and shouldn't be included. For the most part the governorship wil be finished once he leaves office. If some additional facts emerge, they should be added, but there is no reason at this point to believe that there will be a signifigant ammount. There isnt a compelling reason to chop off this part of the page.-- Sierraonfire 04:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Still looking for several good arguments (since, so far, there have been none) for not going ahead and pushing the not-so-biographical and long section on the Governorship and Administration of Mitt Romney into a sub-article, to be repaced by a succinct shorter summary that links to a detailed sub-article. -- Yellowdesk 07:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Rougher07 has made the change here, creating the new page at Governorship of Mitt Romney and here taking the section out of the Mitt Romney page. -- Yellowdesk 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
..."In 1975, Romney completed the degree of M.B.A., graduating in the top 5 percent of his class from Harvard Business School. He was named a Baker Scholar.[5] In 1975 he also received his J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School"
What actually happened was Romney was admitted to a Harvard Program that allowed you to recieve both at the same time...
I propose changing it to read
"In 1975, Romney recieved a joint M.B.A. and J.D. from Harvard from Harvard Business School and Law School. He was named a Baker Scholar from Harvard Law and graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law and Business School.
The top 5 percent is the same thing as cum laude isn't it? I thought he was cum laude from both harvard business and law...
Anyways, he graduated from both at the same time... myclob 19:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thus, if he graduated cum laude from HLS, he was somewhere in the top 40% but was not in the top 10%. Fagles 02:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Harvard Law School recognizes the achievement of attaining and maintaining high grades through graduation honors. Students who graduate with a general average of 7.20 and above are honored with the distinction of graduating summa cum laude. The top 10% of the class, excluding summa, are honored with the distinction of graduating magna cum laude. Finally, the next 30% of the class, after magna are honored with the distinction of graduating cum laude.
Here is the info on his education from the AP: "Career note: He simultaneously earned degrees from Harvard Business and Law schools, graduating cum laude from law school and in the top 5 percent of his business school class." You new description would not be accurate based on this information.-- Sierraonfire 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed the education line to the following:
In 1975, Romney simultaneously earned an MBA from Harvard Business School where he was named a Baker Scholar, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He graduated cum laude from law school and in the top 5 percent of his business school class.
I think this clarifies his education.-- Sierraonfire 04:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the housing section should be removed. As it currently reads, it only mentions his beliefs about the importance of housing and the fact that he has, like every other governor in the country, used money to support it. The press releases just contain the usual laundry list of projects that happen in every state. Unless somebody can point to a study that shows that Romney did something unusual or innovative in this area, I think we should cut it out entirely. Just wanted to see if there were any valid objections first. Notmyrealname 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't strictly apply because it's about article names, not sections, (and also about elections, not campaigns) but consider WP:NAME#Elections. schi talk 01:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose the several campaign sections be re-titled for consistancy, readability and clarity:
Merits: no section title starts with a numeral, the name of the office is clearly stated for non US readers. The abominable formation 2007-8 is dispensed with for the presidential campaign. Comments or improvements? -- Yellowdesk 15:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Changed the section titles today, to:
-- Yellowdesk 23:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Do we need to convert the language in this article to past tense now that Romney's term is over? Notmyrealname 05:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I am inclined to put the sections in chronological order, changing "Political Campaigns" section."
The campaign for president will bury the short governorship section, and since it is the currently occuring activity, the presidential campaign should be at the bottom of the page/article.
Presently (as of Jan 10, 2007
here)
1. Biography
1.1 Early life and education
1.2 Business career
1.3 CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee
2 Political Campaigns
2.1 Massachusetts Campaign for United States Senate, 1994 election
2.2 Campaign for Massachusetts Governor, 2002 election
2.3 Campaign for United States President, 2008 election
3 Governorship
Proposed:
1 Early life and family
2 Education
3 Business career
4 CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee
5 Early Political Campaigns
5.1 Massachusetts Campaign for United States Senate, 1994 election
5.2 Campaign for Massachusetts Governor, 2002 election
6 Governorship
7 Campaign for United States President, 2008 election
I propose the Presidential campaign be a top level section, to better permit subsections in the Presidential Campaign.
Or ALL of the sections could be made top level for consistency.
Comment and criticism invited. --
Yellowdesk 03:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
As implemented -- Yellowdesk 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
5 Massachusetts Political Campaigns
5.1 Campaign for United States Senate, 1994 election
5.2 Campaign for Governor, 2002 election
6 Governor of Massachusetts, 2003-2007
7 Campaign for United States President, 2008 election
Should we list endorsements for Romney's 2008 nomination bid? None of the other contenders have them. Also, every candidate gets a million of these, so this list will go very long. Seems to border on campaign PR to me, but I'd appreciate if others would weigh in.
Notmyrealname 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
googling these terms:
Results include things Romney himself endorses. Lt. Gov Healy is one of this type. Some pages don't have endorse on the page, but are in the link to the page. There are a lot of groups that endorse Romney. This has some similarity to the "X for Romney" type of list. Today, top of the list is Senator DeMint's endorsement. If 10 senators, 10 governors, 20 mayors, and 30 Federal House members, and...where does it end...endorse, that begins to approach 100. Plus "X for Romney" Political Action Committee endorsements, a slightly different category, but meaningful in a different kind of way. -- Yellowdesk 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking through the news reports and wow. Information relating to Mitt Romney's presidential race is starting to get to the out of control point. Because of this I have created a new article using the same style as other pres. campaign articles. I hope I'm not jumping the gun, but I'm imagining his presidential run section growing extremely fast in the next couple of weeks. Chupper 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I came here looking for information on his stance on abortion, trade, voting record etc. etc. This is just a biography, surely it can be expanded? 134.226.1.229 15:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Here are some arguments for including Romney's views, beliefs and so forth on the Romney Presidential Campaign page.
Here's a single example of changing views, and the campaign. Doubtless there will be more analysis articles like this as the campaign progresses.
-->OK: objections or improvements to the proposal that a new section called Political Positions appear on Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008? -- Yellowdesk 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
For the third time today I heard mention of Mitt Romney's possible use of Botox or cosmetic surgery, supposedly received in Concord, MA at Emerson Hospital. Online searches show many returns, and there are hints of a CNN story, possibly timed to follow an official announcement of candidacy. Anyone have citable information on this subject? Mormons are prohibited from using elective anti-aging or cosmetic procedures. Restoration or correction of damge from an accident, or disease (auto-immune) is allowed. CApitol3 04:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Misinformation above about restorative, cosmetic or corrective surgery for Mormons. I have actually never heard this before ever, and can say with certainity that it is incorrect. Restorative, cosmetic, or corrective surgery is well within any bounds of Mormonism. Just started an account today. Look forward to improving Wikipedia on NPOV in the future. -- Scoresalot 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, not misinformation. I did not state that restorative or corrective surgery. Welcome to wikipedia. CApitol3 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
In the 2002 governor race section it says "During the general election Romney ran on a reform platform." What does "reform platform" mean exactly? Wasn't he preceded by other Republican governors for the previous eight years? Notmyrealname 18:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone changed Willard Mitt Romney to Janet Mitt Romney. I'm changing it; it appears to be vandalism.
Janet Mitt Romney Theyre at it again. Changed it to Janet. It's most likely vandalism, I'll watch this page. I'll check and see if it is actually "Janet" or not. N734LQ 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I googled Janet Mitt Romney and nothing. Willard Mitt Romney - the real guy. Redsox7897 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.
It says Romney is an Eagle Scout, but I heard Romney say on the Michael Medved show, after Michael Medved introduced him as an Eagle Scout, that he really isn't one (but some of his sons are). I dunno how to get a transcript of the interview, though; is there any source that verifies he isn't an Eagle Scout? I'm pretty sure there are news articles that falsely report him as one, that's how that fact keeps floating around. I don't want to delete the sentence, though, because my source (the Medved interview) isn't available anymore, as far as I know (except maybe to subscribers to his site). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.8.115.11 ( talk) 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
According to John C. Wells’s Longman pronunciation dictionary (and other authorities), the name Romney has two pronunciations: 1) ['rʌmni], i. e. as if it were written "Rumney" –with the vowel sound of cup; and 2) ['rɔmni], "rOmnee" (British English –with the vowel sound of dog), or ['ra:mni], "rAAmni" (American English –with the vowel sound of start).
It seems (but I’m not quite sure) that both pronunciations are used in Britain, but only the second (['ra:mni], "rAAmni") in American English.
Does anybody know: 1) how Mitt Romney is commonly referred to in the United States (that’s easy, I think); 2) how he and his family pronounce their surname? (I suppose that’s more difficult –but there are probably some recordings of him saying Romney).
I think this would be an interesting piece of information.
Many thanks. Tom Hope 15:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
"Romney on Iran and Iraq Mormons For Peace, January 24, 2007"
This should not be listed in the "articles about Romney" section... No one cares about this site, and what it has to say. The New York Times, Boston Globe, and Mormons for Peace? Come on. Get real.
The video of Romney’s debate with Kennedy is highly cut... can we get a more un-biased, full video?
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.131.75.59 (
talk •
contribs) February 4, 2007
I don't see Mitt Romney's membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as an issue, moreso it is the fast mounting number of latter-day "conversions" the man seem to be having on his policies. Conservatives should know Mr. Romney could not have been elected governor of that bluest of blue states without having at least pretended to have been socially moderate (which in other states might easily be termed liberal). The real question is when is the man pretending? When he assures a group of Republican homosexuals (I know, who'd of thunk that) he would be a better friend to them than Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton, or when he stood up before a gathering of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts and assured them he wouldn't seek to overturn abortion laws? Or, maybe his stance on the death penalty, or would it be Iraq troop deployment? There's so much to choose from.
What conservatives should be concerned about is that he will likely be similarly as dependable to them as he was to Massachusetts' liberals. Worse, it isn't difficult to see James Carville's eyes fill with glee with the prospect of casting Mr. Romney as a sort of oily political prostitute: "I was against abortion before I was for it, and now I am defintely against it again. I mean it this time." Of course somewhere the Log Cabin Republicans have a video of Mitt telling them how much better a supporter of gays he would be than Ted Kennedy. That will really be rich in a September '08 television ad.
On wikipedia it seems there isn't a way of keeping even a cited, linked, sourced statement that is in the tiniest way inconvenient or less than sterlingly praiseworthy on either of the Romney articles. It is summarily labeled irrelevant and reverted. With a small army of supporting editors and unregistered users, working under a banner of Mitt, reverts can take place quickly, and the 3 revert limit by a single member easily overcome.
But there won't be a revert button for the televised 527 group ads where Mitt, in his own voice, tells an auditorium full of homosexuals (the two muscled tank top-clad lads cuddling on his left are a nice touch) he will be a better friend to them than Ted Kennedy. User:GearedBull 00:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This video is heavily edited. If it gave us the raw information, I would consider it less biased, but it clips and cuts and takes him out of context. myclob 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Mitt is also related to Billy the Kid. it seems like a fun fact and should perhaps be included?
This might be worth noting because it made a few headlines and is a unique tactic, but the line that was added on 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC) was poorly written and the cited source is not very reputable. I will rework it when I get a chance (unless someone beats me to it), but for now I'm deleting it. -- Atomicskier 16:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This entry appears to be little more than a fluff public relations brochure typed up a junior member of Romney's own staff. TJ aka Teej 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I assume this should be Ann. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.84.200.55 ( talk) 17:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
"Now the liberal media"? His own aides are part of "the liberal media"? Interesting POV. Just searched FOXNews.com for "Romney Hunting" and saw several FOX news stories calling his claim false. TJ aka Teej 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Now the liberal media is trying to say that Mitt has not been a longtime hunter. They are trying to make him out be dishonest, claiming that he went hunting only once when he was aged 15, and not again to last year when he was 62. They would love for people to believe that Mitt is the sort of candidate that would say whatever it takes to get elected. Can someone refute this? Can we get some pictures with Mitt holding a rifle, a handgun, or gutting a deer or something? CApitol3 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The article referenced stating that he is an eagle is not accurate. He has stated in interviews on television and radio that he was not an eagle. As an addendum, some of his sons have earned the eagle badge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.177.250.253 ( talk) 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
It would be great to get a citation to this, so we don't have the repeated appearance and removal of "Eagle Scout" text.
Any citations / sources to dis-avowed eagle scout membership? --
Yellowdesk 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Randy,
Thank you for contacting the Romney for President Campaign. Governor Romney has been involved in Boy Scouts; however he is not an Eagle Scout.
Again, thank you for your interest. Please feel free to contact us again if you have any further questions/comments regarding Governor Romney.\
Sincerely,
Sarah
Romney for President Rlevse 10:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It is mentioned on this talk page, only in passing and re a/the trivia section, that his football-playing uncle
Milton Romney (who has a small Web presence, including citations of national print media) is the origin of "Mitt". In my household "What kind of
goofball goes by 'Mitt'?" is a (very minor) campaign issue, and of course
YMMV. It's that much less trivial in the context of the deprecated "Willard", after
J. Willard Marriott, the Mormon head of the
Marriott companies (which are Mormon enough that their
Las Vegas facilities are apparently the major gambling-free venues) and supposedly his father's best friend. I'm not advocating we undertake
OR on this, but we should be alert to whether these hints of his lifelong imbedment in an interesting family/cultural matrix are on their way to emerging as a notable, even if peripheral, campaign issue.
--
Jerzy•
t 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Did Romney follow church teachings and go on a two year mission? TJ aka Teej 11:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
He was formerly a Mormon "Bishop" (lay leader) for the State of Massachusetts. Yes he was a missionary. It's in the article. Citations:
New article out in NY Times where his aides estimate Romney to be worth $260 to $350 million: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/us/politics/12romney.html?ref=politics 64.252.193.223 13:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Romney married his high school sweetheart, Ann Davies in 1968. They have five sons (Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben, and Craig)
This article includes nothing about this man's quarter billion dollar personal estate? How STUPID!!!
He made his money by buying companies, firing employees and shipping their jobs overseas. He is a job outsourcer of historic proportions!!!
This article is nothing but fluff!!!!
In fact, its propoganda Not2plato 16:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Political positions section should be kept short. It's a biography, not an ad. I think some of this can be trimmed. Maybe I'll do it tomorrow. A few lines, ok, not more. May shift it to his political positions article Pipermantolisopa 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do we really need links to his children's myspace pages? That seems more than a little over the top. Just Another Fat Guy 05:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Strictly neutral biography, no ads, not for any candidate. Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. Pipermantolisopa 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I just removed recently-added text (something to the effect of "He avoided service in Viet Nam by receiving a deferment") because it is not at all clear, based on those portions of the Miller article that are available online and without registration, whether a deferment was received so that he could do LDS service in France, or if he did so for the underlying purpose of "avoiding" the war.
Aside from all of that, I'm not sure that I'm crazy about using this article as a reference, since it is not available in its entirety without registration/payment to NRO (National Review Online).
What do others think? DagnyB 23:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ooops -- my bad. I was mistaken in my belief that Miller was used to substantiate the addition I just reverted (which, it now appears, was unsourced). Still concerned about using a not-fully-accessible article, though.
DagnyB 23:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
What's the purpose of the last 2 paragraphs, re: death penalty, civil unions, etc. President has little to do with death penalty. Possibly better mentioned under the political positions article. If you list his death penalty position, why not list his position on broccoli (Bush, Sr. was opposed to it) and his opinion on Hugo Chavez? Listing too many positions makes the article become an ad. The abortion position seems relevant to his biography because of a relative's death. Pipermantolisopa 04:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If he is the one who said “I’m glad they are at Guantanamo, I don’t want them on our soil, I want them at Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to our lawyers. I don’t want them to be on our prisons. Some people have said we had to close Guantanamo. My view is we have to double Guantanamo. We have to make sure that the terrorists…” - he is an idiot.
"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mitt Romney article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." See talk page guidelines. Alanraywiki 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC) 70.253.101.2 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Concerning your position and comments on the Fair Tax on 8-5-07, you just lost millions of voters!!! (Literally) Politicians do not understand the problem the citizenry is having with excessive taxes. Read the book and you will understand why this one major change could be the most important change for this country in the last 60 yrs.
The bio section states: "The Romney’s are practicing Mormons and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This implies that Mormons are anything but identical to "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." But this is not the case. They are the same thing. I am editing this sentence to read: The Romney’s are practicing members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Tommysnow 05:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
When reading an article on Romney, I thought it was interesting that he's said that he was an independent during the Reagan years and voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas in the 1992 presidential primary. This is interesting and should be included in this article, possibly in early years?-- Gloriamarie 21:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I added a controversy headline and a subject about Mitt Romney mistreating his dog, which I read in The Guardian today. It has since been removed, I don't know why. It seems quite an important addition to the page because it has been reported on both sides of the Atlantic. So it is important and relevant. Here's my original text:
According to the British Newspaper 'The Guardian'(30/6/07), in 1983 Mitt Romney tied a kennel containing his dog, named Seamus, to the top of his car on a twelve hour drive between Boston and Ontario. At one point Romney's son complained of a brown liquid dripping down the rear windscreen. Romney apparently casually stopped, washed Seamus down and then continued on his way. Romney reportedly said over the controversy that the dog enjoyed being on the roof.
I understand that I do not know how to use the referencing thing on wikipedia so I merely referenced inside the paragraph I added.
-- Madkaffir 21:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The information should be placed in his Presidential Campaign article.-- Gloriamarie 22:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think somebody should add the amount that the SMC employee's had cut out of their paychecks. It was between 6 and 97 cents depending on whether you believe managment or the union. Not having this information makes people think there were huge cuts in their pay.
I do not think that this should have been deleted, therefore it should be restored. If it was a real news report, then it should be put on WikiPedia. You say that WikiPedia is not a news report, but it is an informational scource and it should have that kind of information on it. - Libertyville 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC).
I agree with "Silly rabbit". This story is "pure media tabloid sensationalism." Dansen926 13:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I tagged the governorship section as having its accuracy and neutrality disputed. The section is not a neutral summary of his governorship. It basically consists of one paragraph of inaccurate, over-the-top praise, followed by a long paragraph of criticism that probably is not important enough to be such a big part of this summary. I would delete the praise (discussed below), delete the long discussion of his out-of-state travel, and add more important neutral information such as the passage of the health care bill (probably the most noteworthy accomplishment of his term).
Here are some of the main inaccurate / POV statements:
1) "During this time he did not raise taxes or debt." (source: Mitt Romney Inc. website).
2) "He also proceeded to end his term with a 1 billion dollar surplus(source: Mitt Romney Inc. website).
3) "as well as lower taxes and a lower unemployment rate."(source: Mitt Romney Inc. website).
- Fagles 15:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Nearly everything written in that paragraph is 100% false yet apparently I can't delete it because it just gets restored. god this website is so worthless.
The current "proof" that any of it is true comes from Romney for President Inc.
The governorship section remains a mess.
I've proposed a revision focusing on what I think most people will agree are the three most important aspects of his governorship: fiscal policy, the healthcare legislation, and same-sex marriage. It consists mainly of information copied from the Governorship of Mitt Romney article and significantly shortened. Please feel free to edit this proposed revision here on the talk page. If it gets a positive response I will move it to the article.- Fagles 22:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Romney was sworn in as the 70th governor of Massachusetts on January 2, 2003.
Upon entering office, Romney faced a projected $3 billion deficit. Through revenue increases and spending cuts, he turned the deficit into a $700 million surplus by 2006. [7] A $1.3 billion capital gains tax windfall and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2 billion. [8] Romney raised various fees by $500 million per year, including doubled fees for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and firearm licenses. [9] Romney increased the state gasoline fee by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue. [10] Tuition at state colleges and universities increased 63% during the Romney governorship. [10] Romney approved $128 million in additional tax revenue such as such as a sales tax for purchases on the Internet [11] and raised another $181 million in additional business taxes in the next two years; businesses called these changes tax increases, but Romney defended them as the elimination of "loopholes." [10] [12] He also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns, leading towns to increase property taxes to make up for lost funding for schools and police. [13] According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, the state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased from 10 percent to 10.6 percent of per capita income during Romney's governorship. [10]
On April 12, 2006, Romney signed legislation that mandates nearly all Massachusetts residents to obtain health insurance coverage or elso face a fine. The bill establishes means-tested state subsidies for people without adequate employer insurance and who make below an income threshold, by directing funds designated to compensate for the health costs of the uninsured. [14] [15] [16] He vetoed 8 sections of the health care legislation, including an employer assessment [17] [18] and provisions providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid. [19] [20] The legislature overrode all eight vetoes.
Romney opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions while supporting domestic partnerships. [21] At the beginning of his term, he opposed a constitutional amendment amendment, pushed by the Democratic legislative leadership, that would have banned same-sex marriage and outlawed all domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. [22] After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2003, Romney criticized the decision as harming children. Romney instructed town clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples not planning to move to Massachusetts. [23] He urged the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment. [24] [25] In 2004 Romney reluctantly backed a state constitutional amendment that would have both banned gay marriage and created civil unions, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts. [26] In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, stating that the amendment confused voters who oppose both gay marriage and civil unions. In June 2005, Romney endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would have banned gay marriage and make no provisions for civil unions. [27]
On December 14, 2005, Romney announced that he would not seek re-election for a second term as governor, fueling speculation about a run for the White House in 2008. [28] Romney's term ended January 4, 2007. Romney filed papers to establish a formal exploratory presidential campaign committee the next to last day in office as governor. [29]
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Text "December 18, 2005" ignored (
help)
Hello,
I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.
I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?
Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.
Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.
Thanks, Nick
There is a huge lack of sources in the governorship section (only two or three, I think). I added an {{unreferenced}} tag until we decide what to do. Joseph Antley 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that George Romney was born in Mexico is entirely appropriate to the page on George Romney, and is listed there. But to insert "Mexican-born" into the article on Mitt only inflames the passions of those who have an agenda when it comes to immigration. Mitt was born in Michigan. What else to you need to know? If you want to know about his father, go to his father's page. El Ojo 21:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC) El Ojo
Mitt Romney's full name is Willard Mitt Romney not Willard Milton Romney (as the article states). The name Mitt did come from a relative named Milton, who was referred to as "Mitt," but Mitt Romney's middle name is only Mitt. I am changing the article to reflect this.
Mitt is a UHNWI (ultra-high net worth individual) as he's worth >$30M. This is the top .007% of people in North America (18,700 people), and he's near the top of this list (likely 0.001%, but I can't find any references to this). I think this is notable enough to include in the top of the article. Pro crast in a tor 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |
I made a Josh Romney section, and someone deleted it. I think this man is noteworthy, he's been in the news because of his possible congressional run. I made section, citing my source as Deseret Moring News, and it was deleted, without explanation. Also, I put up a picture of Josh Romney on his wikipedia page, and that was deleted as well. I know people want to merge these articles, so why do you want Josh Romney not under the Mitt Romney page? Who keeps doing this and why? I feel as if my work is going down the drain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooman456 ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I edited the positions section to reflect the fact that Mitt Romney routinely flip flops and that his true positions, if in fact he holds any, are unknown.
This page hs been subjected to heavy vandalism and should be protected, as Hillary Clinton's is, being a presidential candidate. To protect the integrity of the electoral system this artcle should be changed to protected status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.192.87 ( talk) 01:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is hopeless without a picture, especially considering his status as a viable candidate for the 2008 elections. S. Stallings 02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
That Picture is terrible.
So, looking at the actual copyright notice from the mass.gov website (item 3) [1], I question the claim that these images are meant to be in the public domain. That page seems to be referring to government documents and text of government proceedings that are part of the public record (it doesn't use the terms "public domain" like the image uploader claims (see, for example Image:RomneyFreeRally.jpg). In fact, the site's notice goes on to state that "With respect to material copyrighted by the Commonwealth, including the design, layout, and other features of Mass.Gov, the Commonwealth forbids any copying or use other than "fair use" under the Copyright Act." I don't think we have a fair use claim here since free images are easily obtained (anyone can take a free photo of him at a public event). I'm concerned as to the true copyright status of these images. -- ZimZalaBim ( talk) 18:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"Fair use" includes activities such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research, and other related activities
Best thing to do it to check with romney's office. Manytimes they release the copyrights to the images once they are posted on their public websites. Verbal or written permisson would suffice.-- 192.80.65.234 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There was an issue about this a while back. The copyright status was unclear so I called the Romney's office (phone number was on his website). I talked to a person that told me that all of the photos on their site were released into the public domain for unrestricted use. Should we have somebody else call to verify their status?-- Redsox777 21:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
If they release the copyright to the images, what is the issue?-- Michael16G 13:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone editing from an IP address has been reverting my recent edit on the In-state tuition section. I'm up to two reverts, so I wanted others to weigh in. According to the source article in the Boston Globe the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation (according to the Globe a non-partisan, non-profit group that did not issue an opinion on the bill) conducted a study that showed that there would be a net gain to MA taxpayers if the bill were to become law. The article includes a quote from a group that opposed the bill (thus, making it partisan in this case): "Robert Casimiro -- who heads the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform, which opposes the bill -- disputed the conclusions and said he believes that the arrival of hundreds of undocumented immigrant students would have plenty of costs for the state, both at instititions of higher education and in general. "The classes I have attended [at Massasoit Community College] are filled to capacity; they would have to open new classes, and that costs money,"" Note the words "I believe." He did not offer any evidence to challenge the conclusions of the study.
My concerns with the edits by 65.96.5.43 are as follows:
Thanks.-- Notmyrealname 03:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You raise a good point. Casimiro doesn't refute anything. He just disagrees. It seems the word is now off the page. It should't return as it is not the correct term.-- Michael16G 02:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but why not mention the disagreement over the study? Its in the same article used to source the study.-- Waverider5 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
"Romney served for 30 months as a Mormon missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in France." myclob 23:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Also:
"He is also an Eagle Scout." does not belong under Education. myclob 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It does belong in this section because the missionary work occured during this time frame. I would leave the paragraph as is, but consider changing the title of the section from "Education" to "Early Life."-- Michael16G 02:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This section needs to be revamped. More than half of the section is related to initiatives that he proposed but that were never passed, and more space is taken up with his opinions about national policies that he can do nothing about. The relevant info are the metrics that show performance of education in the state during his tenure. Is it necessary to have a picture of him touting the $100 laptop proposal if nothing ever came of it? The casual reader would likely get the impression that this is something that actually happened. Notmyrealname 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"He also serves as the chairman of the Republican Governors Association and honorary chairman of the Commonwealth Political Action Committee.[2]"
Does anyone care? I mean this is his pack, and so I would assume he serves as charman...
I propose, if you agree, you just remove... That's how it should always work. One person proposes, and another person seconds it, by romoving it... A third person can change it back, if they don't like it, unless you make a good argument here, to stop the 2nd person from doing it...
myclob 23:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
"He also achieved prominence as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah"
Does someone ever "achieve prominence"? How does one go abotu achieving promince. Is that a sticker? It does not belong in this article. It is fluffy. If he achieved promince, he did it when he ran against Ted Kennedy. I don't think anyone really cares who runs the olympics. Sure there probably pretty cool people, but no one really "achieves prominence" from it. Take out prominince, or say that he achieved prominence by almost beating Kennedy... myclob 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Romney's work at Bain Capital and his turnarund at Bain & Company is more noteworth than his association with his PAC or the RGA at this point. Shouldnt this go in the lead section in place of the RGA and PAC references? Also, Romney never ran against John Kerry.-- Michael16G 02:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I am glad we have some agreement. I think his buisness career deserves a sentence in the lead. Also, is Romney still the chair of the RGA? He obviously cant continue in the post since he will no longer be a sitting governor in a few weeks.-- Michael16G 04:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a sentence at the top about his buisness career:
"Romney is the former CEO of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm, and the co-founder of Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm."-- Sierraonfire 01:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"At BCG Romney worked with recent MIT graduate and future Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[5]"
This is under business, but does not really mean anything to Romney's business career. Take it out and put it under trivia or somewhere else. myclob 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems fine. It fits into the time line. Its an interesing fact, and not distracting.-- Michael16G 02:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There are portions of the article that read less like an encyclopedia and more like a promotional piece. While carefully guarding content for accuracy and NPOV by Romney supporters is fine, a review of the discussion page (here and in archive) lists numerous comments that much of the content sounds like campaign literature. Without addressing this the article risks reposting of the advertising banner reading:
"To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, this article or section may require cleanup. This article or section reads like an advertisement. Please discuss this issue on the talk page. Editing help is available. Blatant advertising can be marked for speedy deletion."
19:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
We should continue converting the links to footnotes and try to replace press releases with other sources where they are needed. Article is in good shape now, but will need to be carefully expanded when he decides to run for president.-- Waverider5 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Per everybody's suggestions, I am working on the long, thankless task of converting the links to footnotes. The help of others is greatly appreciated.-- Michael16G 15:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I will preface this by saying I rarily vote as I tend to be a cynic when it comes to the moral credibility of either main party, most tributary parties, and most politicians in general. To be arguing whether this page is more promotional or encyclopedic in comparison to the Obama page is outright farce. He's being referred to as the "Everyman", amongst numerous other promotional terms and phrases. The hypocrisy that this website brands itself neutral is insane.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 ( talk • contribs) February 12, 2007
I was surprised to read no mention of Gov. Romney serving his country in the armed forces. Is this the case, or is it left out? He seems the age that he would have qualified for the draft, or could have enlisted for active service during he Vietnam war. Any info on this subject? 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Governor Romney finished his undergraduate degree from BYU in 1971, and received his MBA in 1975. The earliest he likely matriculated at HBS would have been September 1973. In this period U.S. deployment was at record high (troop reducation as a part of Vietnamization began in 1972, and the Selective Service draft did not end until end of year '73), this should have left him eligble for the draft. 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. What's your point? Looks like he didn't get drafted.-- Sierraonfire 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
i would say he is on to a possible draft dodge despite Romney's swagger and posturing photo ops with men and women who DID serve. 68.163.211.56 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I see no info to back up any of these claims. Saying that "Despite the fact" he graduated college, he didnt sign up for the military, doesnt actually point out any information. The information on this topic is of signifigance is his draft status, as it was mandatory to sign up for the draft. It was not maditory to sign up for the army.-- Megatropolis 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to popular belief, even if you registered and were eligible for the Vietnam draft for the entire period of the war, your chances of being called were still only 53% (see http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm). It is highly speculative to say that since he didn't serve he must have been a draft dodger. - Adas, January 2007
With regard to the math (above) that Governor Romney's earliest matriclulation date at HBS would have been September 1973 is just plain incorrect. A closer reading of the article shows that he simultaneously attended Harvard Law School (a 3 year program for the JD degree) and Harvard Business School (a 2 year program for an MBA). At that time, this was offered as a combined 4-year academic program by Harvard, which would place him as entering the joint JD/MBA program at Harvard in September 1971. Therefore, the claim that there are unaccounted-for years is incorrect. - BizJet 10 January 07
So why is this continually added back? I have to ask the relevance of mentioning he didn't, because it seems like it's being added to make some sort of point, which isn't really thought of highly. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Several editors have deleted the following addition to the trivia section: *Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, had five wives. [1]
The editors have offered the following reasons:
Now, a quick Google check for Romney Grandfather Polygamy (for instance) yields 962 hits. This fact has been reported in Slate, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the National Review, and other established media of every stripe and persuasion. Romney himself frequently jokes about the topic, as noted in the Slate article cited in the entry. As several of the articles note, it is pertinent in that Romney has taken a very public political stand defending what he terms "traditional marriage," yet his own family (a very prominent one in early LDS history), engaged in a very different tradition. This page mentions other Romney relatives, including details about the political career of his father. I hope we don't have to get to the point of citing Wikipedia policy of what is "encyclopedic" or the rules about "other pages do/do not do this so ...", but the rules argue for inclusion. In the spirit of assuming good faith, I hope that this isn't a matter of editors not wanting to include information that isn't to their liking. Notmyrealname 03:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Did Romney know this guy? When was this Miles Park Romney born? When did he die? I don't buy your argument that whatever a relative did influences Romney's views on marriage. Obviously close realtives do have a impact on people. If, say, Romney's father was a polygamist, I am sure that it would have a big impact. But since it is a great grandfather my guess is that whatever he did would have zero impact on Romney. Personally I know nothing about my great-grandfather because he died before I was born. His life has no influence on my own. It would be intersting to see the dates of Miles Park Romney's life to see if he was alive during Romney's childhood. As for the asertion that Romney's family does not engage in "traditonal marriage" I strongly disagree. This page notes that Romney has been married to his wife since 1969. He has never been divorced (as far as I can tell). Rommey has been married to one (not many) woman (not a man) for 37 years. Seems pretty "traditional" to me.-- Redsox777 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
http://www.wargs.com/political/romney.html
Well, we seem to have a serious disagreement here. The above 3 editors don't think it's worth mentioning in the article (trivia section or elsewhere), yet the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Boston Globe, the National Review, among others all do. Romney himself frequently jokes that "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman." Obviously, he does not endorse polygamy, but he is acknowledging that the practice has a connection to his faith and his family history. Romney has many blood relatives as a result of this. The elder Romney was an important figure in the early LDS church. If Miles Romney had been Hitler (to borrow from Myclob) or a US president, don't you think that would bear mentioning? Again, it comes down to the fact that many major media (on the right, left, and middle) see this as appropriate. This means that this fact merits inclusion on this page. Where? Well, if not in a trivia section, then I propose either in the gay marriage section or his family section. Notmyrealname 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here are three references from mainstream political sources that make note of the connection: [2], [3], [4].
And from our very own page: "Marriage is not an evolving paradigm," said Romney, "but is a fundamental and universal social institution." Yet, his own family history shows otherwise. Notmyrealname 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Romney's actions as Governor with regards to gay marriage have nothing to do with whatever his great grandfather did. Any attempts to manifest a connection are not only ridiculous, but not rooted in fact or reality. You have no basis to validate these claims. Its blatant and outlandish POV. Romney's actions (married to one woman his entire adult life) do not in anyway conflict with his political views on the definition or marriage. Attempts to paint Romney as some type of hypocrite regarding his traditional definition of marriage because of the actions of a man that was dead and buried long before his time are absurd.-- Sierraonfire 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, there have been a number of comparisons to the actions of other politicians (Bush and his grandfather, Schwarzenegger and his father, Cheney and his daughter). I dont think that the actions of these individuals have anything to do with the political careers of their relatives. Its is however also worth noting that the politicans in question knew all of these realtives. These are close realtives. Bush grew up with his grandfather, Schwarzenegger knew his father, Cheney raised his daughter. For those that are making these comparisons to Romney, let me repeat the facts I had previously posted about Miles Rommey: He was born in 1843 and died in 1904. Not only did he die over 40 years before Mitt Romney's birth, but he actually died before Romney's father was even born. These are not valid comparisons.-- Sierraonfire 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a fairly decent concensus that this isn't relevant to an encyclopedia article. I tend to agree. What we have here is a concerted effort by a single user (Notmyrealname) to keep it in. By the opposition is pretty clear. It should be REMOVED.-- Velvet elvis81 06:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me rephrase. I was not claiming you were acting in bad faith--merely that this was one user vs. three or four. I did not notice the other user's agreement with you. I think outside comment is a good idea. That said, I've had nothing to do with this page as far as creation/editing, so count me one outsider vote against putting it in.-- Velvet elvis81 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not related to any part of Romney's life, public or private. It has no place in an encyclopedia entry and should not be included on this page at this time. If Romney's political foes make this an issue in the 2008 election, then an argument could be made that the controvesy would have a place in the 2008 presidential section.-- Megatropolis 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems interesting to me, and I could see it being included -- but not under the Gay Rights section. Perhaps it would fit better under his early life or something like that. What a man did before 1904 should not be implicated in the political decisions of his descendants -- but it does strike me as a cool thing to know, and as previously mentioned Wikipedia has a bias towards inclusion. So it makes sense to include it.
Considering the context of the times we live in, the contemporary issues of the day, I ask you, which is more relevant: The fact that Mitt Romney's great-grandfather, dead four decades before he lived and even dead before his father lived, was a polygamist, or the fact that Barack Obama's father, though only alive until he was two, was Muslim, whether devout at the time or not, along with his step-father being Muslim, and he being educated for two or so years, in his formative years, in a majority Muslim state, at a Muslim school? At the Obama page, any connections to his Muslim heritage are not available, and, from the talk page, appear to be removed, with repugnant indignance, citing its irrelevance and even nefarious nature were it included. How could Romney's great-grandfather's backward marital practices that are of no way in the norm in the U.S. today, nor ever were, and in no way relates to a trying issue of the day be of import, encyclopedically, if Obama's direct Muslim roots, coming from his father and step-father, as well as some of his education are not of import encyclopedically, especially given the nature of global affairs today? That is obviously a rhetorical question. You all know the answer. You all also know the meaning of the word hypocrisy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 ( talk • contribs) February 12, 2007
Obviously the fact that he is from a polygamist sect is relevant to the article, folks!!! Not2plato 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
First it was "Mormon", then it was "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", then it was "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)" and now it's "Christian (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".
Christian is unncessary and doesn't follow the standard on other articles; hardly any other bios have Christian and then the denomination in brackets. Christian is inferred by listing a Christian denomination. I'm reverting Mitt's back to "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)". Tell me what you think. Antley 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
"Mormon" is slang, a nickname and should not be used at all in professional literature, with the possible exception of the name in brackets for recognition purposes. The term Christian is appropriate as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints profess to follow Christ. Specifying a specific denomination can be helpful for clarity purposes. Dansen926 13:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Does this really belong as the 2nd sentense in his biography? Is this more important than who his dad is? Do we mention any other 2008 presidential candidates great-great grandfather's?
It is a fact that a good percentage of people in America would not support a Mormon president. And so it would make sense, of enemies of Romney's to beat it over our heads over and over again that Romney is a a Mormon. I'm not saying that we should ignore it, but how many times does Joseph Lieberman's article mention that he is Jewish? Lets pretend to be fair.
myclob 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Truth be told, Wikipedia or not, the American public will sooner or later find out all about PP and his connection to MR. Moreover, PP is a notable historical figure and Wikipedia is not a political advocacy or publicity site. So far as Joseph Lieberman goes, I'm not aware that he has any famous ancestors. Gwen Gale 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The PP reference does seem relavent as part of the bio and deserves to remain where it is. 68.48.48.129 16:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Look at Rudy Giuliani's page. His religion is not mentioned. Why should Romney's? myclob 17:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This is article is less profesional than the national enquirer. In order to even pretend like this article is objective, it should have similar numbers for References to Romney's religion as other 2008 candidates. 70.131.75.59 00:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Giuliani's religion is listed on the "infobox" on his page. At least today's version -- Yellowdesk 04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Romney made it a public topic when he got into tiff about it with 1040WHO AM radio host Jan Mickelson. GrEp 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The Associated Press just ran a piece called Romney family tree has polygamy branch. This is a well documented fact, and is not disputed by Mitt or anyone else. Mitt often jokes about polygamy. Mitt's father was born in Mexico as a result of his family having to flee the country because of their polygamy. Mitt has a lot of relatives as a result of this. I don't think this should necessarily have an entire section, but there really should be some mention of this, as there has been in the mainstream press across the ideological spectrum. Notmyrealname 02:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Two citations now support this item. I would say, editors may wish to find yet another with a more neutral title than either. Nonetheless, I believe this item meets WP:BLP along with WP:NPOV. Gwen Gale 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this section should be deleted. The article mentions plenty of times that Romney is a member of the LDS church and there are ample links to the Wikipedia article concerning the LDS church. This article is about Romney, not the church. Thus, a biased, one-and-a-half-sentence summary of the Church is not fitting. "...Romney belongs to a religion about which many Americans know relatively little [no citation]. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is perhaps the most secretive of all the major religious denominations, and keeps its financial holdings, estimated to be over $30 billion dollars, secret, and does not allow persons who are not members in good standing to visit its temples or witness its many ceremonies [no citation]." At least this sentence should be removed, if not the entire section. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
206.251.236.130 (
talk •
contribs).
At least the following three portions of the Religion section do not meet a NPOV standard:
1. The parenthetical in this sentence: "The perceived secretiveness and 'clannishness' of the LDS church (for example, non-LDS members are not allowed to attend temple services, including weddings) is a significant hindrance to many in voting for a Mormon presidential candidate, as is the hierarchical and authoritarian structure of the church[56]." This portion--"for example, non-LDS members are not allowed to attend temple services, including weddings"--is not supported by the citation. It is misleading because the language of this sentence and the sentence prior to it is taken from the cited PBS documentary web page, while the parenthetical portion is not in that page. The author here is guessing as to the motivations of those who responded to a poll. Indeed, the reasons given by people polled are already in the sentence (e.g. secretive and authoritarian), but nothing about temples and weddings is listed.
2. This sentence: "John F. Kennedy was able to overcome similar concerns over Papal authority which burdened his campaign; however, the Romney campaign may have even more difficulty with this, as the LDS church sees its president not only as the ultimate spiritual authority, but also as a prophet of God.[57]." The citation for this is an opinion piece. It is one person's opinion (not based on any poll) as to a possible future problem--LDS belief in a prophet--for the Romney campaign. This is not encyclopedic.
3. This sentence: "However, his religious affiliation provides benefits as well: The church has significant financial and organizational resources that the Romney campaign has already made efforts to tap.[58]." The citation here is a Boston Globe piece published prior to many of the facts of this incident being fleshed out. There is no evidence that the Romney campaign made efforts to tap significant financial and organizational resources of the Church. It is clear that members of the LDS church have donated to Romney's campaign, but it has been made repeatedly clear that the LDS Church is party and candidate neutral and that institutional resources have not gone to Romney's campaign. The whole notion of Romney benefiting from the Church directly (or indirectly by use of Church resources such as organizational lists) has been debunked and gone away. It was based upon one informal meeting between people who knew each other prior to this incident and upon one email from a person associated with the BYU Business School who tried to solicit support for Romney from Alumni of the Business School. This sentence and a citation to this story ignores all of these facts. Furthermore, the sentence explicitly states that what the Boston Globe article falsely implies (Romney is seeking financial and organizational resources from the Church) is a benefit of Romney's religious affiliation. In other words, the tone of this paragraph is this: the negatives of Romney's religious affiliation are X, Y and Z, but the positives of Romney's religious affiliation are that Romney may illegally receive financial and organizational benefits from the Church, as he has already tried.
The three portions are biased, so I am removing them. I suggest removing the entire section as it is not enclyclopedic since it provides only negative views of the Church. Further, there is a wikipedia article devouted to Romney's campaign, to which this section is much more applicable. It does not belong in an article about Mitt Romney, the individual. Unless there is objection for good reason, I will move this section to the article dealing with Romney's campaign for President. Tommysnow 06:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the "trivia" section in order to make the article conform with the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. If any of the information in that section is not trivia, please add it to the appropriate section. Fagles 15:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
After noticing that Students Against Mitt was removed as "inappropriate", I just removed all these unofficial, pro-Romney sites (see below). I may be wrong, but they appear to violate WP:EL, as well as WP:NPOV#Undue weight. schi talk 23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Romney Sites - National
Romney Sites - By State
Romney Sites - By Organization
Great point about the Massachusett's Governor's web site changing soon. This is a significant month for thoroughly reviewing it for information. - Yellowdesk 06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
http://romney-press-releases.blogspot.com/
Again, this cracks me up. The Obama site is a veritable media lovefest. If you truly believed that the sources from which the Obama information is gleaned are neutral, you would have to simply throw your hands up in praise and wholeheartedly nominate him for Emporer of the Universe, with no reservations. Yet this article, which hardly has the "rah-rah" atmosphere of the Obama article needs to avoid pro-Romney sourcing! I am plain speaking:anyone, and I mean anyone, who would even dare to suggest that Wikipedia truly strives to be neutral rather than a Leftist slanted perspective on the world is either truly foolish our and outright liar of low character. And I cannot stand Liberals or Conservatives, from a purely political standpoint. What.A.Joke.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 ( talk • contribs) February 12, 2007
... Barak Obama's article is featured, and I don't see that it is better than this article... myclob 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I presume you're aiming for a Featured article, but you might as well eventually seek a review for the status of "Good Article" as a way-station toward "Featured."
But first, fully responding to the existing peer review is a next step. (For example, I haven't converted any web links to foot notes in more than a month).
See Wikipedia:What is a featured article. In-line citations are the biggest technical step.
Less technically, one of the requirements is not having editors that discourage evaluators (who are volunteers, just like any other editor), and that are willing to take advice, and editors that willing to allow the article to change in light of the evaluations recieved. Two other evaluators decided not to get involved in the peer review, after one Mitt Romney status-quo-defender, Michael16G, basically told the first evaluator to keep her opinions to herself. (I think it is no coincidence that that editor, Michael16G, has fewer than 35 edits that are not related to Romney over the past year; there are more than five other editors that have edit histories that show they only edit the Romney page. Partisan is a reasonable description for single issue editors.) You can see the peer review here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Mitt Romney.
You can bet that a Featured Article review will be a good bit more thorough than the "peer review." As I have said in other places, there are a lot of actions of Romney that do not get a balanced explanation, as Romney not only had proposed many things (rhetoric) that the legislature declined to take up, and the reasons for not taking them up, or for over-riding a veto are unexplained in the article, but further, the article fails to comprehend that any bill passed and signed into law is a joint effort between Romney and the legislature and not all Romney's. Furthermore, Romney, as head of a state is responsible for numerous actions, decisions, personnel, nominations and the like that are un-remarked upon a balanced and encyclopedic manner in the article. It could be that there needs to be an article entitled "Mitt Romney Governorship" to handle the details, similar to Arnold_Schwarzenegger's sub-article Political_career_of_Arnold_Schwarzenegger, or perhaps something like Bill Clinton's sub-article: Clinton_Administration.
In relation to the Obama article, it fails to be a comparable article to the Mitt Romney article, in that the life of Obama has no occasion where he has actually been in charge of something, so there's nothing to write about for Obama but his rhetoric and his personal life history; this is not the case for Romney, and I think the Clinton or Schwarzenegger examples are what you should be aiming for, with the implication that some expanded sub-articles may be necessary to do the topic justice, and earn "Featured Article" status. - Yellowdesk 06:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
(Pardon me, I meant to put this here instead of below....please forgive my mistake) ^LMAO^ ....thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 ( talk • contribs) February 12, 2007
I am trying to update the links so they conform with wiki style sheets, and am having problems with this link...
The link comes after this statement:
Romney told the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts (a Republican gay-rights group) that he did not support same-sex marriage or civil unions, but would fight discrimination against gays and lesbians.
The link has nothing to do with 2002, Log Cabin Republicans, or the "fight discrimination against gays and lesbians"
/\ LMAO /\—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 ( talk • contribs) February 12, 2007
Rimer, Sara. "Perfect Anti-Kennedy' Opposes the Senator." The New York Times, October 25, 1994. myclob 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I left it in, but:
doesn't look official to me. Flatterworld 04:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
A link has been added to an article ( Mormons Against Romney) about a "group" of LDS church members that opposes Mitt Romney. The article is actually a thinly veiled promotion of what appears to be a personal blog site. [6] (I think the article should be deleted, but that's another issue) I can handle a link to a site that may not support Romney, as long as the content of the site is relevant to the main article and the source is both reputable and authoritative. That's going to exclude just about every blog, especially this one. It's not very well written and uses tricks such as sock puppet links like this [7] to appear as though this movement has a larger following than it probably does. It wrongfully features copyrighted material (the trumpeting angel image is a copyrighted trademark of the LDS church), and makes implications against Mitt Romney that border on being libelous, which in a worst case scenario could present a legal liability to Wikipedia if we are seen as promoting a site like this.
So enough ranting from me. People are entitled to their opinion, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog directory. I'm deleting this link and I think we should delete any similar links that pop up. -- Atomicskier 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Some cites to sources/articles that should be incorporated into the article later: (feel free to add your own too schi talk 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC))
This article reads like campaign literature. Tuviya 19:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd also suggest limiting the images. These all seem like highly polished campaign photos straight out of a marketing brochure. - ZimZalaBim ( talk) 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The pictures are from his offical website. They are free images and more than appropriate for this page. The pages does not sound like campagn literature. It is sourced, valid and balanced. It is a long article because he is a potential presidential candiate, not just a regular governor.-- Michael16G 03:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
By asserting that the page reads like campaign literature because it is "too long" doesn't change my opinion. You have not advanced any evidence to back up your theory. As for the pictures, if the copyrights have been released by his office then they are free images and are suitable for wikipedia. If you think there is a conflict you should take some initiative and contact the presumed copyright holder (in this case, Romney's photo office) rather than making guesses.-- Michael16G 13:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added a POV tag to this article due to a report on the Wikipedia Neutrality Project. Please discuss the POV problems here, and please do not remove the tags until the issues have been resolved, and when you do, please leave a note on the WNP request on it so we know to close the request.
The rationale for the report which was filed is as follows:
“ | Concern, as expressed on Talk: Mitt Romney, that article reads too much like campaign literature. 3rd party review for neutrality would be helpful. -- ZimZalaBim ( talk) 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | ” |
On the behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed the article and made some minor textual edits that could be percieved as opinionated in favor of the subject. There is some room to develop the alternate positions to some of his controversial statements, opinions, and actions. The only specific problem that I could find was the Tar Baby issue. The use of the definition is an argument in favor of Romney's postion. It should be referenced for the reader, but unless it was used by a member of the debate, it should be excluded from the actual article, or developed in it's own article. Otherwise, I think ZimZalaBim could clarify the issues that lead to a conclusion of biased content.
As a consequence of the move of the Governorship section's text to the Governorship of Mitt Romney article, I propose that the POV tag be taken off in several days, from the Mitt Romney page, since the past concern has primarily been about the governorship period, assuming no editor undoes the move. I leave it to others to decide if Governorship of Mitt Romney is in need of the tag, mindful of the comments immediately above. Comments invited. -- Yellowdesk 16:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems like the entire article is a glowing management bio. It is not neutral because it talks all about his successes in a glowing way.
Why does the article claim that he is a "leading candidate?" The citation (citation 2) merely links to his declaration of running for president. This doesn't qualify as a souce that backs up a TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE assumption that he is somehow "leading." Find a better source or remove the lie.
The quote ("Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians") the article attributes to an interview, with a link to this National Review article, does not seem to be an interview. The National Review article sounds to me like he's giving a speech. I tried to Google around and found a few other articles/blog posts that also called it an interview, but I also found this Christian Coalition page that said it was from his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I searched the Senate Judiciary Committee's website and could only find this testimony by Romney. Any ideas? I could be wrong, it might have been an interview, but it certainly didn't sound like one to me. I suppose it isn't super-critical that we properly characterize the source of the quote, but I thought would provide an explanation for why I removed the "interview" characterization. schi talk 01:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You are right. Looks like the author took the quote from testimony. Nice catch.-- Michael16G 03:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow - a whole lot of apparent single purpose accounts have sprung up editing here:
Its like this guy is running for President or something.... -- ZimZalaBim ( talk) 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This section needs a little trimming and toning down of language. Right now it reads like a campaign brochure. Do we really need to quote people saying they "needed a white knight?" Do we need to quote three people who say he did a great job? Does Pres. Bush saying you did "a heckuva job" (sorry, "fabulous") really sound like a compliment these days? Besides, what else are these people going to say? Let's get rid of language like "the event needed new leadership and they launched a search." Let's also strike language like "He was charged with restoring faith in the beleaguered event, and rescuing the Olympics from failure." I've started with some obvious trims. Let's just stick with the basics here. This isn't the place to tell a story with drama. Notmyrealname 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, one of the SPAs just reverted my attempts to trim and remove some of the puffery from this article, claiming they were "mass deletions" [8]. (Sigh). Ok, so let's discuss my recent good faith edits:
Please explain why these edits make the article worse. This is an encyclopedia, and this article should provide biographical content about the subject. Please stop trying to block attempts to ensure neutrality in its treatment of the subject. -- ZimZalaBim ( talk) 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What should we do with the crime section? Tuviya says that it was attributing things to Romney that couldn't be backed up. This is a reasonable criticism. However, politicians usually claim credit when crime goes down and get blamed when it goes up. I think it's reasonable to assign some responsability to the person at the top when they've been in office for several years.
This is how the crime section was previously worded:
I agree that the section could be improved, notably by shortening it, and giving some context (e.g. comparing MA crime stats to US crime stats). However, I think it does give a useful comparison by showing the difference between the declining crime rate and the much farther drop in arrest rates. This should be reworded, however, to make clear that they show different things. I'm afraid we're throwing the good out with the bad. Notmyrealname 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There are a few instances in the article where it says Romney signed such-and-such legislation -- I am not intimately familiar with how things are done in the Massachusetts legislature, but my initial reaction (which appears to be confirmed by this article) is that it is routine for the governor to sign legislation that is passed by the legislature. I'm sure the implication is that the governor was in some way responsible - or at least more so than the legislature - for these laws, but, for example in the "Military and veterans' benefits" section, it's not at all clear that he was. Can someone clarify? Generally, and in line with the discussion in the above section, I'd like to see some clearer distinctions between what Romney has specifically done, as opposed to what happened in the legislature during his term. schi talk 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It says he wrote and filed the bill. That means he authored the legisaltion. Its not the "legislature's work." They worked togeather on the issue of veterans benifits.-- Redsox777 21:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah but how many amendments were there, and what political effort and horsetrading or rhetoric was involved in getting the legilature's agreement. They were not supine in the process. This is the perspective that the article is lacking: that it is always necessary for the Governor to collaborate with the legislature if his rhetoric is to be turned into law, regulation and policy. As for 216.236.252.234's claim that it was not routine for Romney to sign an enacted bill, I would call that an unsourced and speculative statement awaiting a citation to an analysis of enacted bills not signed. -- Yellowdesk 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The section mentions that Romney and the legislature worked together. If you think that it is important to expand on "working together" then find to info to prove the "horsetrading". The sources provided do not mention Romney sending the legislation back to the legislature with any amendments, so you can cross that off the list.-- Redsox777 02:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
In this diff, anonymous IP address 216.236.252.234 reverted my changes, claiming that my edit disrupted chronology. I'm going to revert, as my changes were not limited to chronological order and I would rather not see them lost without discussing their merits. As for chronology, this is how my edit presented the events:
I feel this is better than the revert. Thoughts? schi talk 21:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I dont think this is a better format. Keep in mind we are in the "Governorship" section. Governorship goes first, obviously. Your edits have scrambled the order of his progession on the issue. You have mixed up the time line and format that has been used in other sections. You also deleted his explanation for his "evolution" on the issue. I dont see the wisdom behind this reorganization.--
Redsox777 21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The current organization is good. It plots a chronological course of his stance. Making a "political views" section creates a disconnect between views and actions. His actions regarding abortion as Governor, the moratrium on abortion legislation and the veto of the emergency contraception bill, and his political views, his views on Roe v. Wade, would have to be seperated. It doesn't make much sense to do this. All the info is relevent to his views as a politican and governor. I dont think it needs to be changed.-- Michael16G 00:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous IP address 216.236.252.234 just reverted my edits to the business section.
My edits read as follows: After graduating from Harvard Business School, Romney went to work for the Boston Consulting Group, where he had been a summer intern in 1974. [2] From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., a Boston-based management consulting firm. In 1984, Romney left the company to co-found Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm. [3]
In 1990 Romney returned to Bain & Company as CEO to manage the company through a period of financial turmoil. [4]
Following his year at Bain & Company, Romney returned to Bain Capital.
The revised edits read like this:
After graduating from Harvard Business School, Romney went to work for the Boston Consulting Group, where he had been a summer intern in 1974. [5] From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., a Boston-based management consulting firm. In 1984, Romney left the company to co-found Bain Capital, which quickly became a highly successful private equity investment firm. [6]
In 1990 Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections. [4]
Following his year at Bain & Company, Romney returned to Bain Capital. During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital's average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent. [4] During Romney's tenure, the firm founded, acquired or invested in hundreds of companies including Staples Inc., Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Brookstone, Domino's, Sealy and The Sports Authority. [14] Romney left Bain Capital in 1998 to head the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games.
The revised edits are very close in language to the magazine articles that they cite, and are not written in a NPOV encyclopedic style. I tried to remove value-laden language like "quickly became a highly successful private equity firm." Why not just call it a private equity firm? Why say that he was asked to return to lead it out of financial collapse? This is a little too much color. What the heck is an "annual internalized rate of return" and why should we care? How do we know that this can be attributed to Romney? Maybe the market was booming in general? Maybe he had really good employees? People can read the company links to find out more. Let's stick with where he worked and when. I'll leave it to others to change this. Notmyrealname 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The fluff language needs to go, but the preformance of the buisness is relevent to his business career. The results of a company that he founded and lead should be mentioned in his business section. The language in the recent edit provides a statement of fact, not an endorsement of his leaderhsip as you imply. You also removed the info about the situation at Bain and Company and its reveral of fortune. This should also be noted because it reflects the work that he did there. Its encyclopedic fact and info about his time in business.-- Redsox777 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, what where his early business deals? Romney in his speech before Iowans for taxpayer relief detailed it involved jet setting around Asia, but gave no more information. Which governments and companies did he do business with? GrEp 21:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
= Controversy
Now that some time has passed, I think we need to review whether this belongs on this page. If we keep it, do we really need to devote so much space? In the end, Romney denied the guy a police escort. Who cares? Does this really belong on Romney's bio page? Notmyrealname 03:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Its just as important as the "tar baby" and "undocumented workers" controversies. We should either keep all or delete them all.-- Michael16G 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe this article is the longest US gubernatorial article on wikipedia. The article will get longer as the Presidential campaign continues.
Isn't it time to push the governor's administration and political detail into a separate article, relieving the Biography of items that are not biography at all?
I propose the followinging titles, with the aim that others might come up with better titles. Add yours below with signature: ~~~ --
Yellowdesk 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I would much prefer we just cull the existing article to make it manageable rather than devoting an entirely new article to his administration. Tuviya 05:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Intersting suggestion. The article is in fine shape and should not be shortend for the sake of being shortend. That being said I expect this article to grow if he runs for president. It may get really long at that point. I think we should leave it as is, and make the call on this one if it gets too long once the presidential section grows.-- Michael16G 13:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Section and related articles in two presidential biographies.
Bill Clinton#Presidency, 1993-2001
Bill Clinton#The Lewinsky scandal
Bill Clinton#Impeachment trial in the Senate
Bill Clinton#Administrative controversy
Bill Clinton#Campaign finance and the pardon controversy
Bill Clinton#Willey and Broaddrick allegations
Bill Clinton#Humanitarian work
George W. Bush#Domestic policy
George W. Bush#Hurricane Katrina
I wouldn't put the Romney administration in the catagorey of the Bush and Clinton administration. It doesn't need to be seperated from Romney's page. The Governorship section shouldn't expand since he will be leaving office so there shouldn't be a need to break it off from his bio.-- Redsox777 02:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
An "assesment" or an "analysis" of Romney's term is irrelevent for this page. The inclusion of opinionated reviews of Romney's term in office violate wiki guidelines and shouldn't be included. For the most part the governorship wil be finished once he leaves office. If some additional facts emerge, they should be added, but there is no reason at this point to believe that there will be a signifigant ammount. There isnt a compelling reason to chop off this part of the page.-- Sierraonfire 04:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Still looking for several good arguments (since, so far, there have been none) for not going ahead and pushing the not-so-biographical and long section on the Governorship and Administration of Mitt Romney into a sub-article, to be repaced by a succinct shorter summary that links to a detailed sub-article. -- Yellowdesk 07:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Rougher07 has made the change here, creating the new page at Governorship of Mitt Romney and here taking the section out of the Mitt Romney page. -- Yellowdesk 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
..."In 1975, Romney completed the degree of M.B.A., graduating in the top 5 percent of his class from Harvard Business School. He was named a Baker Scholar.[5] In 1975 he also received his J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School"
What actually happened was Romney was admitted to a Harvard Program that allowed you to recieve both at the same time...
I propose changing it to read
"In 1975, Romney recieved a joint M.B.A. and J.D. from Harvard from Harvard Business School and Law School. He was named a Baker Scholar from Harvard Law and graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law and Business School.
The top 5 percent is the same thing as cum laude isn't it? I thought he was cum laude from both harvard business and law...
Anyways, he graduated from both at the same time... myclob 19:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thus, if he graduated cum laude from HLS, he was somewhere in the top 40% but was not in the top 10%. Fagles 02:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Harvard Law School recognizes the achievement of attaining and maintaining high grades through graduation honors. Students who graduate with a general average of 7.20 and above are honored with the distinction of graduating summa cum laude. The top 10% of the class, excluding summa, are honored with the distinction of graduating magna cum laude. Finally, the next 30% of the class, after magna are honored with the distinction of graduating cum laude.
Here is the info on his education from the AP: "Career note: He simultaneously earned degrees from Harvard Business and Law schools, graduating cum laude from law school and in the top 5 percent of his business school class." You new description would not be accurate based on this information.-- Sierraonfire 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed the education line to the following:
In 1975, Romney simultaneously earned an MBA from Harvard Business School where he was named a Baker Scholar, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He graduated cum laude from law school and in the top 5 percent of his business school class.
I think this clarifies his education.-- Sierraonfire 04:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the housing section should be removed. As it currently reads, it only mentions his beliefs about the importance of housing and the fact that he has, like every other governor in the country, used money to support it. The press releases just contain the usual laundry list of projects that happen in every state. Unless somebody can point to a study that shows that Romney did something unusual or innovative in this area, I think we should cut it out entirely. Just wanted to see if there were any valid objections first. Notmyrealname 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't strictly apply because it's about article names, not sections, (and also about elections, not campaigns) but consider WP:NAME#Elections. schi talk 01:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose the several campaign sections be re-titled for consistancy, readability and clarity:
Merits: no section title starts with a numeral, the name of the office is clearly stated for non US readers. The abominable formation 2007-8 is dispensed with for the presidential campaign. Comments or improvements? -- Yellowdesk 15:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Changed the section titles today, to:
-- Yellowdesk 23:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Do we need to convert the language in this article to past tense now that Romney's term is over? Notmyrealname 05:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I am inclined to put the sections in chronological order, changing "Political Campaigns" section."
The campaign for president will bury the short governorship section, and since it is the currently occuring activity, the presidential campaign should be at the bottom of the page/article.
Presently (as of Jan 10, 2007
here)
1. Biography
1.1 Early life and education
1.2 Business career
1.3 CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee
2 Political Campaigns
2.1 Massachusetts Campaign for United States Senate, 1994 election
2.2 Campaign for Massachusetts Governor, 2002 election
2.3 Campaign for United States President, 2008 election
3 Governorship
Proposed:
1 Early life and family
2 Education
3 Business career
4 CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee
5 Early Political Campaigns
5.1 Massachusetts Campaign for United States Senate, 1994 election
5.2 Campaign for Massachusetts Governor, 2002 election
6 Governorship
7 Campaign for United States President, 2008 election
I propose the Presidential campaign be a top level section, to better permit subsections in the Presidential Campaign.
Or ALL of the sections could be made top level for consistency.
Comment and criticism invited. --
Yellowdesk 03:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
As implemented -- Yellowdesk 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
5 Massachusetts Political Campaigns
5.1 Campaign for United States Senate, 1994 election
5.2 Campaign for Governor, 2002 election
6 Governor of Massachusetts, 2003-2007
7 Campaign for United States President, 2008 election
Should we list endorsements for Romney's 2008 nomination bid? None of the other contenders have them. Also, every candidate gets a million of these, so this list will go very long. Seems to border on campaign PR to me, but I'd appreciate if others would weigh in.
Notmyrealname 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
googling these terms:
Results include things Romney himself endorses. Lt. Gov Healy is one of this type. Some pages don't have endorse on the page, but are in the link to the page. There are a lot of groups that endorse Romney. This has some similarity to the "X for Romney" type of list. Today, top of the list is Senator DeMint's endorsement. If 10 senators, 10 governors, 20 mayors, and 30 Federal House members, and...where does it end...endorse, that begins to approach 100. Plus "X for Romney" Political Action Committee endorsements, a slightly different category, but meaningful in a different kind of way. -- Yellowdesk 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking through the news reports and wow. Information relating to Mitt Romney's presidential race is starting to get to the out of control point. Because of this I have created a new article using the same style as other pres. campaign articles. I hope I'm not jumping the gun, but I'm imagining his presidential run section growing extremely fast in the next couple of weeks. Chupper 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I came here looking for information on his stance on abortion, trade, voting record etc. etc. This is just a biography, surely it can be expanded? 134.226.1.229 15:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Here are some arguments for including Romney's views, beliefs and so forth on the Romney Presidential Campaign page.
Here's a single example of changing views, and the campaign. Doubtless there will be more analysis articles like this as the campaign progresses.
-->OK: objections or improvements to the proposal that a new section called Political Positions appear on Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008? -- Yellowdesk 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
For the third time today I heard mention of Mitt Romney's possible use of Botox or cosmetic surgery, supposedly received in Concord, MA at Emerson Hospital. Online searches show many returns, and there are hints of a CNN story, possibly timed to follow an official announcement of candidacy. Anyone have citable information on this subject? Mormons are prohibited from using elective anti-aging or cosmetic procedures. Restoration or correction of damge from an accident, or disease (auto-immune) is allowed. CApitol3 04:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Misinformation above about restorative, cosmetic or corrective surgery for Mormons. I have actually never heard this before ever, and can say with certainity that it is incorrect. Restorative, cosmetic, or corrective surgery is well within any bounds of Mormonism. Just started an account today. Look forward to improving Wikipedia on NPOV in the future. -- Scoresalot 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, not misinformation. I did not state that restorative or corrective surgery. Welcome to wikipedia. CApitol3 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
In the 2002 governor race section it says "During the general election Romney ran on a reform platform." What does "reform platform" mean exactly? Wasn't he preceded by other Republican governors for the previous eight years? Notmyrealname 18:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone changed Willard Mitt Romney to Janet Mitt Romney. I'm changing it; it appears to be vandalism.
Janet Mitt Romney Theyre at it again. Changed it to Janet. It's most likely vandalism, I'll watch this page. I'll check and see if it is actually "Janet" or not. N734LQ 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I googled Janet Mitt Romney and nothing. Willard Mitt Romney - the real guy. Redsox7897 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.
It says Romney is an Eagle Scout, but I heard Romney say on the Michael Medved show, after Michael Medved introduced him as an Eagle Scout, that he really isn't one (but some of his sons are). I dunno how to get a transcript of the interview, though; is there any source that verifies he isn't an Eagle Scout? I'm pretty sure there are news articles that falsely report him as one, that's how that fact keeps floating around. I don't want to delete the sentence, though, because my source (the Medved interview) isn't available anymore, as far as I know (except maybe to subscribers to his site). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.8.115.11 ( talk) 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
According to John C. Wells’s Longman pronunciation dictionary (and other authorities), the name Romney has two pronunciations: 1) ['rʌmni], i. e. as if it were written "Rumney" –with the vowel sound of cup; and 2) ['rɔmni], "rOmnee" (British English –with the vowel sound of dog), or ['ra:mni], "rAAmni" (American English –with the vowel sound of start).
It seems (but I’m not quite sure) that both pronunciations are used in Britain, but only the second (['ra:mni], "rAAmni") in American English.
Does anybody know: 1) how Mitt Romney is commonly referred to in the United States (that’s easy, I think); 2) how he and his family pronounce their surname? (I suppose that’s more difficult –but there are probably some recordings of him saying Romney).
I think this would be an interesting piece of information.
Many thanks. Tom Hope 15:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
"Romney on Iran and Iraq Mormons For Peace, January 24, 2007"
This should not be listed in the "articles about Romney" section... No one cares about this site, and what it has to say. The New York Times, Boston Globe, and Mormons for Peace? Come on. Get real.
The video of Romney’s debate with Kennedy is highly cut... can we get a more un-biased, full video?
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.131.75.59 (
talk •
contribs) February 4, 2007
I don't see Mitt Romney's membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as an issue, moreso it is the fast mounting number of latter-day "conversions" the man seem to be having on his policies. Conservatives should know Mr. Romney could not have been elected governor of that bluest of blue states without having at least pretended to have been socially moderate (which in other states might easily be termed liberal). The real question is when is the man pretending? When he assures a group of Republican homosexuals (I know, who'd of thunk that) he would be a better friend to them than Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton, or when he stood up before a gathering of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts and assured them he wouldn't seek to overturn abortion laws? Or, maybe his stance on the death penalty, or would it be Iraq troop deployment? There's so much to choose from.
What conservatives should be concerned about is that he will likely be similarly as dependable to them as he was to Massachusetts' liberals. Worse, it isn't difficult to see James Carville's eyes fill with glee with the prospect of casting Mr. Romney as a sort of oily political prostitute: "I was against abortion before I was for it, and now I am defintely against it again. I mean it this time." Of course somewhere the Log Cabin Republicans have a video of Mitt telling them how much better a supporter of gays he would be than Ted Kennedy. That will really be rich in a September '08 television ad.
On wikipedia it seems there isn't a way of keeping even a cited, linked, sourced statement that is in the tiniest way inconvenient or less than sterlingly praiseworthy on either of the Romney articles. It is summarily labeled irrelevant and reverted. With a small army of supporting editors and unregistered users, working under a banner of Mitt, reverts can take place quickly, and the 3 revert limit by a single member easily overcome.
But there won't be a revert button for the televised 527 group ads where Mitt, in his own voice, tells an auditorium full of homosexuals (the two muscled tank top-clad lads cuddling on his left are a nice touch) he will be a better friend to them than Ted Kennedy. User:GearedBull 00:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This video is heavily edited. If it gave us the raw information, I would consider it less biased, but it clips and cuts and takes him out of context. myclob 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Mitt is also related to Billy the Kid. it seems like a fun fact and should perhaps be included?
This might be worth noting because it made a few headlines and is a unique tactic, but the line that was added on 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC) was poorly written and the cited source is not very reputable. I will rework it when I get a chance (unless someone beats me to it), but for now I'm deleting it. -- Atomicskier 16:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This entry appears to be little more than a fluff public relations brochure typed up a junior member of Romney's own staff. TJ aka Teej 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I assume this should be Ann. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.84.200.55 ( talk) 17:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
"Now the liberal media"? His own aides are part of "the liberal media"? Interesting POV. Just searched FOXNews.com for "Romney Hunting" and saw several FOX news stories calling his claim false. TJ aka Teej 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Now the liberal media is trying to say that Mitt has not been a longtime hunter. They are trying to make him out be dishonest, claiming that he went hunting only once when he was aged 15, and not again to last year when he was 62. They would love for people to believe that Mitt is the sort of candidate that would say whatever it takes to get elected. Can someone refute this? Can we get some pictures with Mitt holding a rifle, a handgun, or gutting a deer or something? CApitol3 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The article referenced stating that he is an eagle is not accurate. He has stated in interviews on television and radio that he was not an eagle. As an addendum, some of his sons have earned the eagle badge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.177.250.253 ( talk) 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
It would be great to get a citation to this, so we don't have the repeated appearance and removal of "Eagle Scout" text.
Any citations / sources to dis-avowed eagle scout membership? --
Yellowdesk 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Randy,
Thank you for contacting the Romney for President Campaign. Governor Romney has been involved in Boy Scouts; however he is not an Eagle Scout.
Again, thank you for your interest. Please feel free to contact us again if you have any further questions/comments regarding Governor Romney.\
Sincerely,
Sarah
Romney for President Rlevse 10:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It is mentioned on this talk page, only in passing and re a/the trivia section, that his football-playing uncle
Milton Romney (who has a small Web presence, including citations of national print media) is the origin of "Mitt". In my household "What kind of
goofball goes by 'Mitt'?" is a (very minor) campaign issue, and of course
YMMV. It's that much less trivial in the context of the deprecated "Willard", after
J. Willard Marriott, the Mormon head of the
Marriott companies (which are Mormon enough that their
Las Vegas facilities are apparently the major gambling-free venues) and supposedly his father's best friend. I'm not advocating we undertake
OR on this, but we should be alert to whether these hints of his lifelong imbedment in an interesting family/cultural matrix are on their way to emerging as a notable, even if peripheral, campaign issue.
--
Jerzy•
t 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Did Romney follow church teachings and go on a two year mission? TJ aka Teej 11:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
He was formerly a Mormon "Bishop" (lay leader) for the State of Massachusetts. Yes he was a missionary. It's in the article. Citations:
New article out in NY Times where his aides estimate Romney to be worth $260 to $350 million: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/us/politics/12romney.html?ref=politics 64.252.193.223 13:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Romney married his high school sweetheart, Ann Davies in 1968. They have five sons (Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben, and Craig)
This article includes nothing about this man's quarter billion dollar personal estate? How STUPID!!!
He made his money by buying companies, firing employees and shipping their jobs overseas. He is a job outsourcer of historic proportions!!!
This article is nothing but fluff!!!!
In fact, its propoganda Not2plato 16:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Political positions section should be kept short. It's a biography, not an ad. I think some of this can be trimmed. Maybe I'll do it tomorrow. A few lines, ok, not more. May shift it to his political positions article Pipermantolisopa 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do we really need links to his children's myspace pages? That seems more than a little over the top. Just Another Fat Guy 05:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Strictly neutral biography, no ads, not for any candidate. Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. Pipermantolisopa 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I just removed recently-added text (something to the effect of "He avoided service in Viet Nam by receiving a deferment") because it is not at all clear, based on those portions of the Miller article that are available online and without registration, whether a deferment was received so that he could do LDS service in France, or if he did so for the underlying purpose of "avoiding" the war.
Aside from all of that, I'm not sure that I'm crazy about using this article as a reference, since it is not available in its entirety without registration/payment to NRO (National Review Online).
What do others think? DagnyB 23:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ooops -- my bad. I was mistaken in my belief that Miller was used to substantiate the addition I just reverted (which, it now appears, was unsourced). Still concerned about using a not-fully-accessible article, though.
DagnyB 23:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
What's the purpose of the last 2 paragraphs, re: death penalty, civil unions, etc. President has little to do with death penalty. Possibly better mentioned under the political positions article. If you list his death penalty position, why not list his position on broccoli (Bush, Sr. was opposed to it) and his opinion on Hugo Chavez? Listing too many positions makes the article become an ad. The abortion position seems relevant to his biography because of a relative's death. Pipermantolisopa 04:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If he is the one who said “I’m glad they are at Guantanamo, I don’t want them on our soil, I want them at Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to our lawyers. I don’t want them to be on our prisons. Some people have said we had to close Guantanamo. My view is we have to double Guantanamo. We have to make sure that the terrorists…” - he is an idiot.
"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mitt Romney article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." See talk page guidelines. Alanraywiki 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC) 70.253.101.2 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Concerning your position and comments on the Fair Tax on 8-5-07, you just lost millions of voters!!! (Literally) Politicians do not understand the problem the citizenry is having with excessive taxes. Read the book and you will understand why this one major change could be the most important change for this country in the last 60 yrs.
The bio section states: "The Romney’s are practicing Mormons and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This implies that Mormons are anything but identical to "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." But this is not the case. They are the same thing. I am editing this sentence to read: The Romney’s are practicing members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Tommysnow 05:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
When reading an article on Romney, I thought it was interesting that he's said that he was an independent during the Reagan years and voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas in the 1992 presidential primary. This is interesting and should be included in this article, possibly in early years?-- Gloriamarie 21:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I added a controversy headline and a subject about Mitt Romney mistreating his dog, which I read in The Guardian today. It has since been removed, I don't know why. It seems quite an important addition to the page because it has been reported on both sides of the Atlantic. So it is important and relevant. Here's my original text:
According to the British Newspaper 'The Guardian'(30/6/07), in 1983 Mitt Romney tied a kennel containing his dog, named Seamus, to the top of his car on a twelve hour drive between Boston and Ontario. At one point Romney's son complained of a brown liquid dripping down the rear windscreen. Romney apparently casually stopped, washed Seamus down and then continued on his way. Romney reportedly said over the controversy that the dog enjoyed being on the roof.
I understand that I do not know how to use the referencing thing on wikipedia so I merely referenced inside the paragraph I added.
-- Madkaffir 21:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The information should be placed in his Presidential Campaign article.-- Gloriamarie 22:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think somebody should add the amount that the SMC employee's had cut out of their paychecks. It was between 6 and 97 cents depending on whether you believe managment or the union. Not having this information makes people think there were huge cuts in their pay.
I do not think that this should have been deleted, therefore it should be restored. If it was a real news report, then it should be put on WikiPedia. You say that WikiPedia is not a news report, but it is an informational scource and it should have that kind of information on it. - Libertyville 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC).
I agree with "Silly rabbit". This story is "pure media tabloid sensationalism." Dansen926 13:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I tagged the governorship section as having its accuracy and neutrality disputed. The section is not a neutral summary of his governorship. It basically consists of one paragraph of inaccurate, over-the-top praise, followed by a long paragraph of criticism that probably is not important enough to be such a big part of this summary. I would delete the praise (discussed below), delete the long discussion of his out-of-state travel, and add more important neutral information such as the passage of the health care bill (probably the most noteworthy accomplishment of his term).
Here are some of the main inaccurate / POV statements:
1) "During this time he did not raise taxes or debt." (source: Mitt Romney Inc. website).
2) "He also proceeded to end his term with a 1 billion dollar surplus(source: Mitt Romney Inc. website).
3) "as well as lower taxes and a lower unemployment rate."(source: Mitt Romney Inc. website).
- Fagles 15:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Nearly everything written in that paragraph is 100% false yet apparently I can't delete it because it just gets restored. god this website is so worthless.
The current "proof" that any of it is true comes from Romney for President Inc.
The governorship section remains a mess.
I've proposed a revision focusing on what I think most people will agree are the three most important aspects of his governorship: fiscal policy, the healthcare legislation, and same-sex marriage. It consists mainly of information copied from the Governorship of Mitt Romney article and significantly shortened. Please feel free to edit this proposed revision here on the talk page. If it gets a positive response I will move it to the article.- Fagles 22:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Romney was sworn in as the 70th governor of Massachusetts on January 2, 2003.
Upon entering office, Romney faced a projected $3 billion deficit. Through revenue increases and spending cuts, he turned the deficit into a $700 million surplus by 2006. [7] A $1.3 billion capital gains tax windfall and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2 billion. [8] Romney raised various fees by $500 million per year, including doubled fees for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and firearm licenses. [9] Romney increased the state gasoline fee by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue. [10] Tuition at state colleges and universities increased 63% during the Romney governorship. [10] Romney approved $128 million in additional tax revenue such as such as a sales tax for purchases on the Internet [11] and raised another $181 million in additional business taxes in the next two years; businesses called these changes tax increases, but Romney defended them as the elimination of "loopholes." [10] [12] He also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns, leading towns to increase property taxes to make up for lost funding for schools and police. [13] According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, the state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased from 10 percent to 10.6 percent of per capita income during Romney's governorship. [10]
On April 12, 2006, Romney signed legislation that mandates nearly all Massachusetts residents to obtain health insurance coverage or elso face a fine. The bill establishes means-tested state subsidies for people without adequate employer insurance and who make below an income threshold, by directing funds designated to compensate for the health costs of the uninsured. [14] [15] [16] He vetoed 8 sections of the health care legislation, including an employer assessment [17] [18] and provisions providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid. [19] [20] The legislature overrode all eight vetoes.
Romney opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions while supporting domestic partnerships. [21] At the beginning of his term, he opposed a constitutional amendment amendment, pushed by the Democratic legislative leadership, that would have banned same-sex marriage and outlawed all domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. [22] After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2003, Romney criticized the decision as harming children. Romney instructed town clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples not planning to move to Massachusetts. [23] He urged the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment. [24] [25] In 2004 Romney reluctantly backed a state constitutional amendment that would have both banned gay marriage and created civil unions, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts. [26] In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, stating that the amendment confused voters who oppose both gay marriage and civil unions. In June 2005, Romney endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would have banned gay marriage and make no provisions for civil unions. [27]
On December 14, 2005, Romney announced that he would not seek re-election for a second term as governor, fueling speculation about a run for the White House in 2008. [28] Romney's term ended January 4, 2007. Romney filed papers to establish a formal exploratory presidential campaign committee the next to last day in office as governor. [29]
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Text "December 18, 2005" ignored (
help)
Hello,
I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.
I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?
Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.
Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.
Thanks, Nick
There is a huge lack of sources in the governorship section (only two or three, I think). I added an {{unreferenced}} tag until we decide what to do. Joseph Antley 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that George Romney was born in Mexico is entirely appropriate to the page on George Romney, and is listed there. But to insert "Mexican-born" into the article on Mitt only inflames the passions of those who have an agenda when it comes to immigration. Mitt was born in Michigan. What else to you need to know? If you want to know about his father, go to his father's page. El Ojo 21:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC) El Ojo
Mitt Romney's full name is Willard Mitt Romney not Willard Milton Romney (as the article states). The name Mitt did come from a relative named Milton, who was referred to as "Mitt," but Mitt Romney's middle name is only Mitt. I am changing the article to reflect this.
Mitt is a UHNWI (ultra-high net worth individual) as he's worth >$30M. This is the top .007% of people in North America (18,700 people), and he's near the top of this list (likely 0.001%, but I can't find any references to this). I think this is notable enough to include in the top of the article. Pro crast in a tor 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |
I made a Josh Romney section, and someone deleted it. I think this man is noteworthy, he's been in the news because of his possible congressional run. I made section, citing my source as Deseret Moring News, and it was deleted, without explanation. Also, I put up a picture of Josh Romney on his wikipedia page, and that was deleted as well. I know people want to merge these articles, so why do you want Josh Romney not under the Mitt Romney page? Who keeps doing this and why? I feel as if my work is going down the drain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooman456 ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)