![]() | 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 |
After receiving two requests, I've fully protected this article for a 3-day period. Reason being is obvious: edit warring. Please use this talk page to discuss the disputed areas so that once the protection expires, there is no further disruption caused. I realize this article "needs to be updated continuously" and I've "protected the wrong version" - however, the faster we use discussion to reach consensus the quicker the page can be unprotected. Rjd0060 ( talk) 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a see also link to Mitt Romney's tax returns on section Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Tax_returns -- Kendrick7 talk 02:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the
{{
edit protected}}
template. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This is simply material that was uncontroversially a part of this article before it was sucked out and hidden away in a fork. The fork is gone, so now the material must be returned. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 04:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Material on Mitt Romney's tax returns was deleted from this article - with claims of undue weight, when the section was about 2 paragraphs long. Then it was deleted and put into an article called Mitt Romney's tax returns. This article was challenged as a POV fork, the idea being that we don't deal with different POVs by having different articles - we put the material in one article and sort it out to get NPOV. So the "fork" was deleted. The material is now getting deleted here because the "POV fork" was deleted. That's totally against the idea of deleting POV forks. The material gets deleted because there's too much of it, too little of it, because it says too much, because it says too little. The only reason nobody has given is that it's not reference in reliable sources. That's because it is referenced in multiple reliable sources (100s from the top news sources if you'd like them all included!). So do please come up with a logically consistent reason for deleting this material! Otherwise, it has to stay in. Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I will remind editors that returning of all that information is highly contentious. Let us discuss how much weight to give this section here rather than create an edit war which will not improve the situation. Arzel ( talk) 05:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
This page was locked last time because some editors were merging the material that was deleted. As the topic is being heavily discussed, putting deleted material back in is completely disregarding consensus and incites an edit war. Naapple ( Talk) 11:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Forget about the copy or not copy from the deleted article. The content was placed here way before that article was deleted, so the point is moot. In any case, are people here saying that two sentences cover this topic sufficiently? Obviously not given the abundance of national and international sources. So, I will start again afresh, and commence adding material to that section so that it properly reflects what has been reported on the subject. When I do so, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE unless the material is not properly sourced. Cwobeel ( talk) 14:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The current section suffers from undue weight. Two sentences does not represent the massive coverage this issue has triggered. In google:
I ask editors to help add a modicum of weight to this section to reflect what sources report on this subject. This request goes also to those editors supportive of Romney. Cwobeel ( talk) 14:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I have added a few facts and figures that are pertinent to illustrate the issue. Please help by expanding further. Cwobeel ( talk) 17:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
@Arzel: Can you please let me know what is out of scope on this [3]? I found your interactions here completely out order, and disrespectful of work done in good faith. You need to stop engaging in a practice of deleting content for no other reason that you don't like it! I have posted my arguments here, so be kind and respond and debate. Cwobeel ( talk) 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
"Out of scope" must be another term for "I don't like it." The section is on Mitt Romney's tax returns - the content of the single tax return that has been released for this campaign (or ever) is obviously within the scope. Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Why this is not relevant? These are facts about his tax returns, no? Cwobeel ( talk) 19:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Romney's 2010 tax return reports income of $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million in 2011, primarily from profits, dividends or interest from investments, and that he had a "bank account, security account or other financial account" in Switzerland; according to Romney's aides, this account was closed in 2010. Financial accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands were also reported. Benjamin Ginsberg, Romney campaign's legal counsel, reported that Romney earned $7.4 million in carried interest from Bain Capital in 2010. [1]
At times you will have little option but to say an edit is Crap. Either it is heavily WP:POV, or perhaps WP:OR with a little WP:SYNTH thrown in for good measure. You will explain patiently via edit summaries and on talk pages why this is so. But the other guy just will not engage the actual reasons, usually saying the sources meet WP:RS. Or they will revert you after you have removed the crap, then cite WP:BRD and bore you to tears on the talk page in the hope you will just give up. They will never see how their additions are original research. Or even that their edits are quite simply crap.
Agreed; failure to cover the tax return issue would be such a huge omission as to render the entire article non-neutral. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 04:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's correct to have "see also" hat note to the main Romney article. Per WP:Summary style, that's kind of backward, and the main Romney article ought to (and does) summarize and point to this article. I will fix. 71.88.58.198 ( talk) 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me that putting lists smack dab in the middle of an article very much disturbs and interrupts the flow of the article. So, I think it would be a good idea to move "Campaign staff and policy team" and also "Foreign Policy and National Security Advisory Team" to the end of the article. Any problem with that? 71.88.58.198 ( talk) 03:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I wrote the heading for this section, but on second thought I did so too narrowly. This ad is significant not just because it was the first ad, but because there were objections about taking things out of context. I will broaden the heading, and restore the removed quote from the New York Times, which seems very pertinent in this article, for the sake of NPOV. The title ought to be: "First TV advertisement and questions about context". 71.88.58.198 ( talk) 03:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the following would be within the scope of this article and this section:
“ | According to The New York Times, when the Obama camp put material on television that "makes no effort to put any of Mr. Romney’s statements into context", the Romney campaign responded by saying that Obama was trying to distract Americans from real issues such as high unemployment. [2] | ” |
64.134.98.120 ( talk) 16:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This article needs a neutrality tag as there are quite a few areas that violate NPOV and use weasel words. For example: "Another gaffe that crippled the Romney campaign" Can someone add a neutrality tag until the article is cleaned up? Korentop ( talk) 11:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
What you are required to do according to WP:NPOV - of which WP:Undue weight is a part. I'll put the word must in bold. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. .... The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
I must agree. Belchfire, if you express a preference without reason, anyone could just express the opposing preference with just as little reason. You need to go deeper; you need to justify your preferences. Otherwise, they are fundamentally unpersuasive. I've been suggesting this to you for some time now, so I'm sorry if this sound repetitive, but you're just not getting it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 04:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I would say that his efforts and Ryan's efforts to push Todd Akin out of the race. It was WP:N and fits in the article. Casprings ( talk) 04:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Romney's positions on abortion are anything but unchanged. Yes, we know he is currently against abortion, but which exceptions he allows for is still under debate. I can pull multiple articles showing confusion in the media, so don't say "it's clear." Just because Romney says "My position hasn't changed" doesn't mean it hasn't changed. Happy to provide references for that. So, the article would probably be titled "Role of abortion in the Romney's campaign." It would have a summary of his position, then illustrate why that position is unclear (conflicting statements on the matter) and why abortion is now a central part of the campaign (which is where the Akin link comes in). You can't say this isn't a major part of the campaign. And you can't say his position is clear. But even if his position were clear and unchanged, it's part of the 2012 campaign so it should go in there. Jasonnewyork ( talk) 19:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone attempted to tackle Romney's views on medicare? Jasonnewyork ( talk) 05:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I know this is a very active page right now (duh!), and see that a lot of comments have been purged (although available through the history). What are the rules/guidelines for this? Is someone doing it on a monthly basis? When an issue is resolved? How is it done? Dougom ( talk) 16:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm curious to gather some thoughts about whether to mention Mitt Romney's speech, given to a collection of wealthy donors and surreptitiously taped, in which he describes approximately half of the U.S. population as dependent upon government assistance, tax dodgers unwilling to "take personal responsibility", and thus unwilling to vote for him.
There's been quite a bit of coverage in independent, reliable sources, for example: USA Today, TIME, Financial Times, BusinessWeek, New York Times, Reuters, Associated Press, The Hill, Associated Press again, Orlando Sentinel, ABC News, Los Angeles Times, AFP, CBS News, The Telegraph, :: Politico, and so on. MastCell Talk 00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
On Monday 9/17 Romney responded to a video that was taped during a private May fundraiser where he described 47% of the country as “victims” and “dependent upon the government.”
At this time, the video is briefly mentioned, but nobody reading the article would have a clue about its contents. Why? I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 09:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to remind editors that WP is not a newspaper. The current entry is very misleading. Let us treat this like we did with Obama's belittling of people in 2008 regarding "guns and religion" Let us wait for a day or so to let the facts settle and then work on a way to incorporate the material, and see just how much of an issue this becomes. Arzel ( talk) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Our job is to report what our sources say. We don't get to whitewash. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 17:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems like a precedent has been established that heavily covered election-season attacks are exempt from WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ( and sometimes even qualify for standalone articles!) I'm not sure I agree with that precedent, but it clearly exists and should be applied evenly. MastCell Talk 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add the following or someting like it:
The point is that Romney was not speaking to the general public at a campaign stop. He was speaking to an audience that he felt might be in agreement with his interpretation of the sitution at hand. It softens the "He didn't really say that did he?" response. ``` Buster Seven Talk 20:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a head's up-- there's a AFD debate about whether this section should be a subarticle or a section here. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 01:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Per BRD, I'm bringing up the insertion and subsequent removal of a contrary view. [4] It comes from the Weekly Standard, which describes itself as conservative, and does not repreent anything close to the mainstream view. It may be a minor view, but with just one data point, we can't say even that much. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 06:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
An IP has persisted in rewording the sentence concerning press reaction to Romney's comments on preparations for the Olympics thus [5]. This appears to be self-evidently WP:OR: the sentence "In London, the British press exploited his comments restating "disconcerting stories" of security concerns over readiness of the London 2012 Olympic Games, which prompted a defensive response from British politicians." is *not* a reflection of the sources cited, but is POV editorializing (i.e. suggesting that the British press somehow conspired to force British politicians to denounce Romney's comments) which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Having reverted this edit once, I am now stating quite clearly why I did so: I don't particularly want to be involved in an edit-war, but this is a rare instance where it seems to me there is no justification to allow the edit to stand. I am going to leave a message on the IP's talk page explaining to him the policies involved and to ask him to self-revert - unless, perhaps, another editor here is prepared to do the revert. Alfietucker ( talk) 17:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Really? Hcobb ( talk) 13:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-president-obama-won-a-second-term-20121123 The speculation now is, "Why didn't he just write himself a check after the primaries until his fundraising got up to steam?" He could have just written himself a check on whatever he was short. The man is worth at least $250 million – $50 million ain't going to break him.
some redirect-vandalism (fail)...I personally don't know how to remove it.
Paranoid Android1208 (
talk)
16:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
A reference has been added to add another perspective regarding the campaign statement regarding auto production in China. There has been some edit warring going on regarding this addition to the article, so I thought it best to bring to the talk page to discuss whether or not is should be included. To me, it seems that without this aspect the section is a little one-sided and POV. I hope others will weigh in here rather than just add and revert. 72Dino ( talk) 16:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This recent addition to the article seems questionable. Why is this one of many rhetorical statements used during the campaign being singled out. The link goes to a recent article of questionable value. This appears to be an attempt to add links to other articles in an attempt to bolster the newly created article. Springee ( talk) 11:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I propose that Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney be merged into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. I think that the content in the article is already mostly covered in the "Readiness Project" section. * Seen a Mike * 22:36, 3 February 2016 (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 |
After receiving two requests, I've fully protected this article for a 3-day period. Reason being is obvious: edit warring. Please use this talk page to discuss the disputed areas so that once the protection expires, there is no further disruption caused. I realize this article "needs to be updated continuously" and I've "protected the wrong version" - however, the faster we use discussion to reach consensus the quicker the page can be unprotected. Rjd0060 ( talk) 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a see also link to Mitt Romney's tax returns on section Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Tax_returns -- Kendrick7 talk 02:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the
{{
edit protected}}
template. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This is simply material that was uncontroversially a part of this article before it was sucked out and hidden away in a fork. The fork is gone, so now the material must be returned. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 04:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Material on Mitt Romney's tax returns was deleted from this article - with claims of undue weight, when the section was about 2 paragraphs long. Then it was deleted and put into an article called Mitt Romney's tax returns. This article was challenged as a POV fork, the idea being that we don't deal with different POVs by having different articles - we put the material in one article and sort it out to get NPOV. So the "fork" was deleted. The material is now getting deleted here because the "POV fork" was deleted. That's totally against the idea of deleting POV forks. The material gets deleted because there's too much of it, too little of it, because it says too much, because it says too little. The only reason nobody has given is that it's not reference in reliable sources. That's because it is referenced in multiple reliable sources (100s from the top news sources if you'd like them all included!). So do please come up with a logically consistent reason for deleting this material! Otherwise, it has to stay in. Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I will remind editors that returning of all that information is highly contentious. Let us discuss how much weight to give this section here rather than create an edit war which will not improve the situation. Arzel ( talk) 05:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
This page was locked last time because some editors were merging the material that was deleted. As the topic is being heavily discussed, putting deleted material back in is completely disregarding consensus and incites an edit war. Naapple ( Talk) 11:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Forget about the copy or not copy from the deleted article. The content was placed here way before that article was deleted, so the point is moot. In any case, are people here saying that two sentences cover this topic sufficiently? Obviously not given the abundance of national and international sources. So, I will start again afresh, and commence adding material to that section so that it properly reflects what has been reported on the subject. When I do so, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE unless the material is not properly sourced. Cwobeel ( talk) 14:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The current section suffers from undue weight. Two sentences does not represent the massive coverage this issue has triggered. In google:
I ask editors to help add a modicum of weight to this section to reflect what sources report on this subject. This request goes also to those editors supportive of Romney. Cwobeel ( talk) 14:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I have added a few facts and figures that are pertinent to illustrate the issue. Please help by expanding further. Cwobeel ( talk) 17:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
@Arzel: Can you please let me know what is out of scope on this [3]? I found your interactions here completely out order, and disrespectful of work done in good faith. You need to stop engaging in a practice of deleting content for no other reason that you don't like it! I have posted my arguments here, so be kind and respond and debate. Cwobeel ( talk) 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
"Out of scope" must be another term for "I don't like it." The section is on Mitt Romney's tax returns - the content of the single tax return that has been released for this campaign (or ever) is obviously within the scope. Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Why this is not relevant? These are facts about his tax returns, no? Cwobeel ( talk) 19:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Romney's 2010 tax return reports income of $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million in 2011, primarily from profits, dividends or interest from investments, and that he had a "bank account, security account or other financial account" in Switzerland; according to Romney's aides, this account was closed in 2010. Financial accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands were also reported. Benjamin Ginsberg, Romney campaign's legal counsel, reported that Romney earned $7.4 million in carried interest from Bain Capital in 2010. [1]
At times you will have little option but to say an edit is Crap. Either it is heavily WP:POV, or perhaps WP:OR with a little WP:SYNTH thrown in for good measure. You will explain patiently via edit summaries and on talk pages why this is so. But the other guy just will not engage the actual reasons, usually saying the sources meet WP:RS. Or they will revert you after you have removed the crap, then cite WP:BRD and bore you to tears on the talk page in the hope you will just give up. They will never see how their additions are original research. Or even that their edits are quite simply crap.
Agreed; failure to cover the tax return issue would be such a huge omission as to render the entire article non-neutral. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 04:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's correct to have "see also" hat note to the main Romney article. Per WP:Summary style, that's kind of backward, and the main Romney article ought to (and does) summarize and point to this article. I will fix. 71.88.58.198 ( talk) 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me that putting lists smack dab in the middle of an article very much disturbs and interrupts the flow of the article. So, I think it would be a good idea to move "Campaign staff and policy team" and also "Foreign Policy and National Security Advisory Team" to the end of the article. Any problem with that? 71.88.58.198 ( talk) 03:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I wrote the heading for this section, but on second thought I did so too narrowly. This ad is significant not just because it was the first ad, but because there were objections about taking things out of context. I will broaden the heading, and restore the removed quote from the New York Times, which seems very pertinent in this article, for the sake of NPOV. The title ought to be: "First TV advertisement and questions about context". 71.88.58.198 ( talk) 03:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the following would be within the scope of this article and this section:
“ | According to The New York Times, when the Obama camp put material on television that "makes no effort to put any of Mr. Romney’s statements into context", the Romney campaign responded by saying that Obama was trying to distract Americans from real issues such as high unemployment. [2] | ” |
64.134.98.120 ( talk) 16:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This article needs a neutrality tag as there are quite a few areas that violate NPOV and use weasel words. For example: "Another gaffe that crippled the Romney campaign" Can someone add a neutrality tag until the article is cleaned up? Korentop ( talk) 11:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
What you are required to do according to WP:NPOV - of which WP:Undue weight is a part. I'll put the word must in bold. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. .... The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
I must agree. Belchfire, if you express a preference without reason, anyone could just express the opposing preference with just as little reason. You need to go deeper; you need to justify your preferences. Otherwise, they are fundamentally unpersuasive. I've been suggesting this to you for some time now, so I'm sorry if this sound repetitive, but you're just not getting it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 04:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I would say that his efforts and Ryan's efforts to push Todd Akin out of the race. It was WP:N and fits in the article. Casprings ( talk) 04:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Romney's positions on abortion are anything but unchanged. Yes, we know he is currently against abortion, but which exceptions he allows for is still under debate. I can pull multiple articles showing confusion in the media, so don't say "it's clear." Just because Romney says "My position hasn't changed" doesn't mean it hasn't changed. Happy to provide references for that. So, the article would probably be titled "Role of abortion in the Romney's campaign." It would have a summary of his position, then illustrate why that position is unclear (conflicting statements on the matter) and why abortion is now a central part of the campaign (which is where the Akin link comes in). You can't say this isn't a major part of the campaign. And you can't say his position is clear. But even if his position were clear and unchanged, it's part of the 2012 campaign so it should go in there. Jasonnewyork ( talk) 19:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone attempted to tackle Romney's views on medicare? Jasonnewyork ( talk) 05:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I know this is a very active page right now (duh!), and see that a lot of comments have been purged (although available through the history). What are the rules/guidelines for this? Is someone doing it on a monthly basis? When an issue is resolved? How is it done? Dougom ( talk) 16:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm curious to gather some thoughts about whether to mention Mitt Romney's speech, given to a collection of wealthy donors and surreptitiously taped, in which he describes approximately half of the U.S. population as dependent upon government assistance, tax dodgers unwilling to "take personal responsibility", and thus unwilling to vote for him.
There's been quite a bit of coverage in independent, reliable sources, for example: USA Today, TIME, Financial Times, BusinessWeek, New York Times, Reuters, Associated Press, The Hill, Associated Press again, Orlando Sentinel, ABC News, Los Angeles Times, AFP, CBS News, The Telegraph, :: Politico, and so on. MastCell Talk 00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
On Monday 9/17 Romney responded to a video that was taped during a private May fundraiser where he described 47% of the country as “victims” and “dependent upon the government.”
At this time, the video is briefly mentioned, but nobody reading the article would have a clue about its contents. Why? I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 09:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to remind editors that WP is not a newspaper. The current entry is very misleading. Let us treat this like we did with Obama's belittling of people in 2008 regarding "guns and religion" Let us wait for a day or so to let the facts settle and then work on a way to incorporate the material, and see just how much of an issue this becomes. Arzel ( talk) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Our job is to report what our sources say. We don't get to whitewash. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 17:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems like a precedent has been established that heavily covered election-season attacks are exempt from WP:NOTNEWSPAPER ( and sometimes even qualify for standalone articles!) I'm not sure I agree with that precedent, but it clearly exists and should be applied evenly. MastCell Talk 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add the following or someting like it:
The point is that Romney was not speaking to the general public at a campaign stop. He was speaking to an audience that he felt might be in agreement with his interpretation of the sitution at hand. It softens the "He didn't really say that did he?" response. ``` Buster Seven Talk 20:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a head's up-- there's a AFD debate about whether this section should be a subarticle or a section here. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 01:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Per BRD, I'm bringing up the insertion and subsequent removal of a contrary view. [4] It comes from the Weekly Standard, which describes itself as conservative, and does not repreent anything close to the mainstream view. It may be a minor view, but with just one data point, we can't say even that much. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 06:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
An IP has persisted in rewording the sentence concerning press reaction to Romney's comments on preparations for the Olympics thus [5]. This appears to be self-evidently WP:OR: the sentence "In London, the British press exploited his comments restating "disconcerting stories" of security concerns over readiness of the London 2012 Olympic Games, which prompted a defensive response from British politicians." is *not* a reflection of the sources cited, but is POV editorializing (i.e. suggesting that the British press somehow conspired to force British politicians to denounce Romney's comments) which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Having reverted this edit once, I am now stating quite clearly why I did so: I don't particularly want to be involved in an edit-war, but this is a rare instance where it seems to me there is no justification to allow the edit to stand. I am going to leave a message on the IP's talk page explaining to him the policies involved and to ask him to self-revert - unless, perhaps, another editor here is prepared to do the revert. Alfietucker ( talk) 17:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Really? Hcobb ( talk) 13:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-president-obama-won-a-second-term-20121123 The speculation now is, "Why didn't he just write himself a check after the primaries until his fundraising got up to steam?" He could have just written himself a check on whatever he was short. The man is worth at least $250 million – $50 million ain't going to break him.
some redirect-vandalism (fail)...I personally don't know how to remove it.
Paranoid Android1208 (
talk)
16:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
A reference has been added to add another perspective regarding the campaign statement regarding auto production in China. There has been some edit warring going on regarding this addition to the article, so I thought it best to bring to the talk page to discuss whether or not is should be included. To me, it seems that without this aspect the section is a little one-sided and POV. I hope others will weigh in here rather than just add and revert. 72Dino ( talk) 16:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This recent addition to the article seems questionable. Why is this one of many rhetorical statements used during the campaign being singled out. The link goes to a recent article of questionable value. This appears to be an attempt to add links to other articles in an attempt to bolster the newly created article. Springee ( talk) 11:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I propose that Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney be merged into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. I think that the content in the article is already mostly covered in the "Readiness Project" section. * Seen a Mike * 22:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)