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 5 |
Let's discuss possible changes here. In particular, please do not revert correction of the formatting of external links without discussing it here.
It looks like the reversion undid updated formatting of footnotes. I think it is better to use the new footnote formatting.
Every time I look at the article, the notes changes from two columns, back to one, and back again. I like the two column. It is more efficient with black space, and narrow columns are more easy to read than long ones...
myclob 19:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It does seem to make sense to have the subject headings be descriptions that are comprehensible to people who are not familiar with MA politics - "Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill" and "Health Care" will be more useful subject headings than simply "Melanie's Bill" and "Health Care for All"
This sentence in the article seems a little negative. I think it violates the NPOV 'rule'.
"When polls showed Romney's popularity starting to slip, while state support for same-sex marriage and opposition to an amendment began to rise, Romney scaled back his anti-gay efforts, at least for the rest of 2004."
Mind if I give a shot at cleaning it up?
this whole article is full of bias, there is no criticism of anything, false facts, and a false portrayal of Mitt Romney. He is very unpopular in Massachusetts now.
70.142.206.0 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully everyone likes the new organized format. Perhaps the old format had an advantage, that our discussion could have been organized chronologically. However, I see great value in organizing our discussion by subject, and hope you do also. Questions: I don't know if Ted Danson would be under biography? We should make a new section for "proposed changes", and then as everyone is OK, and they have been changed, then we can move the discussion into a done, complete, past, or reference section...
Using "tar baby" as his nickname is not only untrue, but it also is derogatoryy towards him. The "tar baby" nickname should be removed to not look like an offensive statement.
The way this reads right now, it talks about his residency, and his religion. It needs to be better organized than that. I guess someone removed the ==home== section, is everyone alright with this? Should we create an "old section headings" section? myclob
Natural-born citizen says Romney was born in Mexico, but this article says Detroit. Which one is correct? CryptoDerk 20:31, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I was surprised to read that Romney graduated from Brigham Young - especially as I had heard him speak anecdotally of Stanford. I Googled it. Romney was valedictorian at Brigham Young according to an article located at this website: http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200506031216.asp">
"Romney returned home and married Ann, his high-school sweetheart, when he was 22 and she was 19. Though he attended Stanford for two semesters, he transferred to Brigham Young University and became the valedictorian. "
Is that true? If so, should(nt) something like that be included in his bio?
-Thomas
I agree. I would like to know more WHY did he transfer from Stanford to BYU. Is there an article we can cite that will answer that? Did he not do well at Stanford? Did his faith lead him to attend BYU instead? Was there another college girlfriend that attended BYU? Etc.
I also agree that Governor Romney's place of birth is very relevant. If he was born in Mexico, would that make a difference in his eligibility to become President of the United States? These are things that opposition research should investigate, but to make life easier on everybody, us Wiki fans should find that detail out now....
-Larry
Will somebody mention how such a challenge it would be for Romney to run in 2008, considering how southern Protestants, including Jerry Falwell, take issue with the Mormon religion? Would any conservatives here like to try mentioning this? -Amit
DoorFrame has moved information about Romney's religion to the opening paragraph. I'm moving this point further down the article: looking at a random selection of other governors' entries, it looks like we don't put their religions so high up their entries, and I don't see any reason to single out Romney for special treatment. So far as I am aware, his religion does not have "headline" influence on his performance as governor, so it seems slightly POV to stress it. WMMartin 13:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
In the bio box in the top right section of the page, the religion which Romney belongs is not "Latter Day Saint" but "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", considering that the term "Latter Day Saint" strictly refers to the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", but not the largest denomination or mainstream Latter Day Saint movement.
The category of Latter-day Saints bishops has been deleted from Gov. Romney's page. The list incldes bishops both living and dead, it is not solely a classification of current bishops. Constant removal of references to his participation in his faith suggests bias. 15:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I am curious how he became acquainted with Swahili. I tried doing a simple Google search on this, but the only results mentioning both the governor and Swahili were though that drew from wikipedia as a source. I don't doubt he speaks some Swahili, I'm just wondering if there is more information for this (or perhaps a source).
I don't know? I know he speaks French. Does he speak any other languages?
Is it just me, or does Romney look like actor Ted Danson?
One of the articles says that he looks like Ted danson, but with real hair and more handsome?
I removed the following statement from the article: Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998. as it didn't have a specific source cited. I assume it can easily be backed up from news reports; please cite one or more and re-add it (cited) to the article. Just being careful with possibly damaging information. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Why would a politician’s electoral history be one of the last things on his page? Just because every other politician’s web page is this way, doesn't mean that is the right way! Besides I don't accept the proposition that every other politician’s wiki sight has their electoral history at the bottom of the page. -myclob
Warren Tolman ran in that race too. While I know his share of the vote was not large, I find it hard to believe that it was less than the 1% that Carla Howell got. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Warren Tolman was one of five candidates for Massachusetts governor who competed in the Democratic Party primary in 2002. The other four candidates were Shannon O'Brien, Tom Birmingham, Robert Reich, and Steve Grossman. Shannon O'Brien won the primary election, and was the only Democrat whose name appeared on the final ballot in November 2002.
I'm keeping my finger off the revert button this time, but I wanted to voice a concern about MN57798's recent deletion of Romney's 2008 Presidential aspirations. The deletion stated that it was poorly sourced and that Romney hadn't made it official. The original posting cited a Boston Globe editorial. Romney supporters on this page have recently argued that opinion pieces are legitimate wiki sources. Second, Romney is widely acknowledged to be planning a 2008 run. Just because he hasn't made it official doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed here if there are valid sources. This isn't an official Romney PR page. What's the problem? Also, I don't see what the issue is with listing his comment about the Civil War being a campaign of "Northern Aggression." This seems legitimate to me if there is a valid source. In general, it would be nice if editors of this page discussed their thinking on the talk page BEFORE making major deletions. Notmyrealname 15:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
For the section Possible Presidential Run in 2008 -
Isn't there a better source than Bill O'Reilly for this section? He has zero credibility with a very large number of people. How about a few other commentators, and an article or three from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other national journals? Like this now old blog article
[1]. (I did not check to see if the link still works.
by the way, a review of the "citing sources" pages on Wikipedia will give a hint at the complaints that will be received upon review for a feature article. Many citations are general, and don't indicate how the innocent reader can tell when or how the source said the claimed information. Yellowdesk 01:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we delete the quote from Bill O'Reily. Is it really wise to put in idle speculation from a partisan pundit? This week's Boston Phoenix has a quote that "in his heart Mitt is a sharpie, as cold as he is ambitious." [2] This is about as appropriate as the O'Reilly quote. We could either refrain from putting in quotes like this or we could have a seperate section of quotes, but I would imagine that this would get out of hand once he formally declares his candidacy. Comments? Notmyrealname 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This section is going to need a major expansion--soon. I dont think polls can really tell you anything at this point, but endorsements and the addition of political talent to Romney's campaign are important additions. Its early now, but we should be thinking about this.-- Michael16G 14:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
See how this is the same first heading under governorship on the other page? Pretty neat hu? Let’s keep it this way.
The section on Healthcare is getting pretty long, and the article seems a bit unbalanced. I propose creation of a new article of Healthcare in Massachusetts, in accordance with Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Articles_covering_subtopics. The article could include information about Romney's role in development of the plan, as well as more detailed background information about the current situation and about how the plan works than would be appropriate for this article. -- Fagles 21:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The Romney article should not be split. An independent Health Care Legislation page for further discussion and developments is a good idea but this page should stay the way that it is. The current health care section outlines the plan that Romney proposes in the linked Wall Street Journal op-ed, and that deserves placement on Romney's page.
Also, it makes absolutely no sense to split Romney's views on gay marriage. I don’t know if there is a "Massachusetts gay marriage" page, but Romney's gay marriage position should be displayed in full. -- Michael16G
Put me down as a "no" for the split idea. It would make things too confusing if we were to brake this page up. -Cliffhanger7
This quote is wrong. The sources cited say per capita spending DROPPED. This would mean the ranking by states improved only because one other state dropped their per capita spending to a lower level than Massachusetts. Dreadfully inaccurate and misleading. Yellowdesk 01:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Kudos on that one. The sources indicate that while the state ranks higher in per capita funding compared to other states, the funding has decreased due to budget cuts.-- Michael16G 03:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - - the citations as in the article:
From
Bridgewater State College, near bottom of page:
2002 Rank: 48 Massachusetts $158
From TBF - The Boston Foundation
Let's also note that both sources are...not nationally known summarizers of statistics of this kind.
Yellowdesk 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - -
–Source: press release (May 2005)
Charter School Press Release !!2003 [09-18-2003], ROMNEY ANNOUNCES $6 MILLION CHARTER SCHOOL GRANT
!!2004 [06-23-2004], ROMNEY TO VETO CHARTER SCHOOL MORATORIUM
“Charter schools embrace innovative educational practices that encourage competition and hold teachers and administrators accountable for the academic achievement of their students. Choice within the Massachusetts public school system should be available to all parents, particularly those with children in our low-performing districts.”
This sentence needs a follow-up. When was the initiative announced? What is the outcome? What Do opponents say about it? Yellowdesk 01:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It could use a follow up line.-- Waverider5 02:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It’s not "married to his proposition" it explains this proposal. Don’t forget that this is Mitt Romney's page.
Why can't he the legislature to do what he wants? Because the General Court is predominantly composed of Democrats. Democrats have other priorities in education funding, such as appeasing the teacher's unions that support them. There isn’t much to explain here. Do you need a lesson on two party government and the inability a governor to pass some of his legislation when a legislature dominated by opposing party has a veto-proof majority????-- Michael16G 13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This was removed by Michael16G, Nov. 6, 2006. Worth figuring out how to integrate. and properly cite. Yellowdesk 15:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Romney has cut funding for higher education in Massachusetts by $12 million since joining office. [Source: Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, 6/26/03 & 6/22/06].He also cut almost $3 billion from public schools, health care, and other public services to finance tax breaks that disproportionately benefited the wealthy. [Source: Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, 1/26/05]. Under Romney’s Governorship, between 2002 and 2004, Massachusetts had the largest reduction in K-12 spending in the nation. [Source: Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, 1/2006]
“In my service as Governor, I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventive health practice,” said Romney. “ Abstinence education gives young people the support they need in making the decision to postpone sexual activity until they are mature enough to handle the emotional, moral and financial responsibilities of parenthood,” he said. “This is more than teaching kids to say no – it will help them preserve self-esteem and build character.” From a 05-31-2006 Press Release
!!Quotes from Mitt Romney on Abstinence Education
[04-20-2006], ROMNEY ANNOUNCES AWARD OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONTRACT
!!Links http://www.mass.gov/dph/
There are two "education" sections. One on the state, one for Romney's personal educational experiences. This needs to be fixed. Yellowdesk 01:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I suggest changing the one in the Governorship category to "education initiatives"-- Waverider5 02:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Put stuff about budget balancing here!
This whole Wikipedia is nothing but a piece of online campaign literature. Romney's campaign people are reading it almost daily and deleting anything balanced. Two days ago, this was posted, and then pulled down.
Romney has a mixed record on same-sex marriage. In 2002, he stated that he did not support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage because "it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept." http://www.baywindows.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=3248627AC1DE4AD9BF73F8EDB5DA00AC
Inside of Massachusetts during the 2004 marriage debate and following it, he did not act to prevent same sex marriages when he could have. Many pro-family leaders inside and outside Massachusetts, including columnist Patrick J. Buchanan, Mathew Staver, Esq. of Liberty Counsel http://www.lc.org/ProFamily/mass.htm
and Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst College ("The Missing Governor," National Review Online, 5/17/2004 urged Romney to defy the unconstitutional Court ruling and prevent the marriages via Executive Order. http://www.nationalreview.com/arkes/arkes200405170901.asp
One read of the well-documented "The Romney Deception" http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/s/spip.php?article325 and it will be obvious to Wikipedia that this page is inaccurate and imbalanced. I suggest the page be removed if the practice will be to allow deletions of information which attempt to portray a balanced viewpoint.
Put Same-Sex Marriage stuff here!
I am reverting the edits of User:JamesB3 because:
1. Removed properly sourced info
2. Added incorrect info (e.g., protestant that replaced non-religious groups)
3. The groups listed their own stated purpose – replacing it with a user’s interpretation is POV
4. Listing Log Cabin Republicans as a “moderate” group based on gay issues is entirely POV
5. To only list 1 group is POV – lots of groups have praised and supported Romney
6. There is no stated basis for the flip flopping criticism
-- Noitall 23:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
If you are going to remove anything that I write, at least please try to trim down your own comments. I don't know if you agree with these people and that is why you put so much detail, but something crisper would be far more effective. -- JamesB3 07:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On Log Cabin Republicans, groups can describe their purpose, but whether they are moderate or not is described by others. The only way to get around this is to state the objective of Log Cabin Republicans (promote pro-gay issues within the GOP) and state they identify themselves as moderate, which of course lengthens the article and looks sort of ridiculous, since it clearly is not true. And politicians accept the endorsement of thousands of individuals and groups, including the ones I listed, and noting one select group may be POV. It would probably be acceptable to state, "For his actions, Romney was criticized by Log Cabin Republicans, which promotes pro-gay issues within the GOP and had endorsed him in 2002."
On the orgs, it could be summarized with the words "conservative and family", but I think this does not adequately describe the nature of the breadth of the coalition or its local and national roots.
On the flip flopping, there would need to be more detail and context and sources rather than the conclusory "flip flopping."
-- Noitall 13:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the breadth of this coalition. Catholic and fundamentalist Christian organizations have teamed up before, and they have swarmed in on Massachusetts before, in 2001, in 2002, in 2003, in 2004, to try to pass amendments to ban gay marriage. Some of them aren't as powerful as their names may suggest (mainly the MA Family Institute). While it's certainly important to note that they are working together, I still don't see why every part of their organization needs to be mentioned in this article. Wouldn't it be better to put a link to their site in Romney's article and let people see the organization for themselves? -- JamesB3 20:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-- Noitall 21:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
-- Noitall 01:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I think that "Some legal experts have argued that the original purpose of the legislation was to block interracial marriages and have noted that the law was enacted at the height of public scandal over black heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson's interracial marriages [3] [4] , while Thomas Reilly has stated that the law had nothing to do with race. [5]."
Is better than "Opponents of the law have erroneously stated that the original purpose of the legislation was to block interracial marriages"
-- the sources are pretty clear that the issue is still the subject of debate with experts on both sides.
The section on Same-Sex Marriage is getting pretty long, and the article seems a bit unbalanced with much longer sections on same-sex marriage and abortion than on other topics. I propose creation of a new article of Romney's views on Same-Sex Marriage, in accordance with Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Articles_covering_subtopics. The article could include the growing number quotes from Romney about Same-Sex Marriage that are interesting but would be too extensive for the main article on Romney, and could include more detail about his role in events in Mass. than would fit here.
The Romney article would keep a summary on Same-Sex Marriage (possibly renamed Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Rights, since there's also discussion of antidiscrimination laws, civil unions, and partnership benefits).
The summary could be something like the following:
What do people think? -- Fagles 17:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Naw, otherwise this page gets too fluffy, Mitt stands by his standing up to homosexuals with marriage on their mind and to abortionists. We'll leave it here. 04:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
If nobody else has an opinion about this, I'll go ahead and make the change next week.-- Fagles 02:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Today, you are witnessing democracy in action. On issues of fundamental importance affecting all of the people, it is ultimately up to the people to decide. That is what this Constitutional Convention is all about. It serves as an important reminder that no one person and no branch of government is above the voice of the people. This is as it should be. Amending the constitution is a serious matter and any changes to the document itself should be finely and narrowly drawn. I recognize that the Senate President and the Senate Minority Leader are trying to find a compromise that will satisfy people on both sides of this issue, but their proposed amendment goes too far. The Constitution should not be used to legislate new social policy. A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not a new proposal but rather a codification of longstanding policy and tradition. Civil union language is best left to the legislative process. My hope is the Constitutional Convention will approve an amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. If we do that, we will have taken an important step toward restoring the people’s voice in their own government. - Source: 02-11-2004 Press Release
I agree with the President on the need for a federal marriage amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As I’ve said before, amending the U.S. Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states and to guard against overreaching by the judicial branch. Acts of lawlessness in San Francisco bring into even sharper focus the need to proceed with the process of amending the Constitution. I don’t think anyone ever imagined that we would have courts and local officials defining marriage in a way that has no historical precedent whatsoever, and claiming it’s been in the Constitution all along. Of course, we must conduct this debate with decency, tolerance and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is so fundamental to society that it should not be decided by one court in Massachusetts or by one mayor in San Francisco. In America, the people should decide. In America, the people are fair and tolerant. Let the people decide. - Taken from a 02-24-2004 Press Release
Good afternoon. Our elected representatives met yesterday and took the first steps toward passing an amendment to the state Constitution that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I applaud Senate President Travaglini, Speaker Finneran and all the members of the Legislature for conducting a respectful and thoughtful debate. As we saw, some people feel that the amendment changes the Constitution; I, and many others, feel that it preserves the Constitution. This amendment process began after the state Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage, setting aside thousands of years of recorded history and legal precedent. The Court directed the Legislature to take action as it deemed appropriate. That’s just what the Legislature did yesterday. The Legislature is now on a track to put this issue before the voters. Ultimately, this is as it should be: the people of our state will decide. I know there are deeply held personal convictions around this issue. There are real people and real lives that are affected. On a matter of such significance and with such tender sentiment involved, I would ask that we continue to show respect and consideration for those of differing views. For all of us, the rule of law is bedrock. We’ve seen the lawlessness that has erupted in other states and how it undermines the higher purposes we all seek to preserve. I know there’s been a lot of speculation about what action I will take as Governor of the Commonwealth. Until the Legislature completes its work at the end of this month, I will have no comment on the options before me. But let me state clearly that whatever I do will be within the bounds of the law. Just as the Legislature is working within the constitutional and legal structure of our state, I will do the same. The Legislature has taken the first step. As the process continues, let us hope the final step will be taken by the people. Thank you. - Source: 03-12-2004 Press Release
Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy, distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for asking me to join you today. First, I ask that my written remarks be inserted into the record of this hearing. You have asked for my perspectives on the recent inauguration of same sex marriage in my state. This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intolerance and prejudice. This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. 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. Given the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Congress and America now face important questions regarding the institution of marriage. Should we abandon marriage as we know it and as it was known by the framers of our constitution? Has America been wrong about marriage for 200 plus years? Were generations that spanned thousands of years from all the civilizations of the world wrong about marriage? Are the philosophies and teachings of all the world’s major religions simply wrong? Or is it more likely that four people among the seven that sat in a court in Massachusetts have erred? I believe that is the case. And I believe their error was the product of seeing only a part, and not the entirety. They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights. But marriage is not solely for adults. Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother. Of course, even today, circumstances can take a parent from the home, but the child still has a mother and a father. If the parents are divorced, the child can visit each of them. If a mother or father is deceased, the child can learn about the qualities of the departed. His or her psychological development can still be influenced by the contrasting features of both genders. Are we ready to usher in a society indifferent about having fathers and mothers? Will our children be indifferent about having a mother and a father? My Department of Public Health has asked whether we must re-write our state birth certificates to conform to our Court’s same-sex marriage ruling. Must we remove “father” and “mother” and replace them with “parent A” and “parent B?” What should be the ideal for raising a child: not a village, not “parent A” and “parent B,” but a mother and a father. Marriage is about even more than children and adults. The family unit is the structural underpinning of all successful societies. And, it is the single-most powerful force that preserves society across generations, through centuries. Scientific studies of children raised by same sex couples are almost non-existent. And the societal implications and effects on these children are not likely to be observed for at least a generation, probably several generations. Same sex marriage doesn’t hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years. Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing. One person may choose to live as a single, even to have and raise her own child. Others may choose to live in same sex partnerships or civil arrangements. There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding. But there is a difference between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights, but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all. Some have asked why so much importance is attached to the word “marriage.” It is because changing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same sex practice. It is inconceivable that promoting absolute indifference between heterosexual and homosexual unions would not significantly effect child development, family dynamics, and societal structures. Among the structures that would be affected would be religious and certain charitable institutions. Those with scriptural or other immutable founding principles will be castigated. Ultimately, some may founder. We need more from these institutions, not less, and particularly so to support and strengthen those in greatest need. Society can ill afford further erosion of charitable and virtuous institutions. For these reasons, I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment. Some retreat from the concept of amendment, per se. While they say they agree with the traditional definition of marriage, they hesitate to amend. But amendment is a vital and necessary aspect of our constitutional democracy, not an aberration. The constitution’s framers recognized that any one of the three branches of government might overstep its separated powers. If Congress oversteps, the Court can intervene. If the Executive overreaches, Congress may impeach. And if the Court launches beyond the constitution, the legislative branch may amend. The four Massachusetts justices launched beyond our constitution. That is why the Massachusetts legislature has begun the lengthy amendment process. There is further cause for amendment. Our framers debated nothing more fully than they debated the reach and boundaries of what we call federalism. States retained certain powers upon which the federal government could not infringe. By the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, our state has begun to assert power over all the other states. It is a state infringing on the powers of other states. In Massachusetts, we have a law that attempts to restrain this infringement on other states by restricting marriages of out-of-state couples to those where no impediment to marry exists in their home state. Even with this law, valid same sex marriages will migrate to other states. For each state to preserve its own power in relation to marriage, within the principle of Federalism, a federal amendment to define marriage is necessary. This is not a mere political issue. It is more than a matter of adult rights. It is a societal issue. It encompasses the preservation of a structure that has formed the basis of all known successful civilizations. With a matter as vital to society as marriage, I am troubled when I see an intolerant few wrap the marriage debate with their bias and prejudice. I am also troubled by those on the other side of the issue who equate respect for traditional marriage with intolerance. The majority of Americans believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but they are also firmly committed to respect, and even fight for civil rights, individual freedoms and tolerance. Saying otherwise is wrong, demeaning and offensive. As a society, we must be able to recognize the salutary effect, for children, of having a mother and a father while at the same time respecting the civil rights and equality of all citizens. Thank you. - Taken from a 06-22-2004 Press Release
Death Penalty section...this needs an update. Who is for it, who is not, is it a dead letter or what? Yellowdesk 04:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The bill, filed April 28, 2005, ...
What are you mising? The bill was proposed and it was defeated by the legislature. This is a complete section. Please read the text provided before you creat superflous sections on the talk page.--
Michael16G 13:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
If that were all there is to it, then the entry should merely be: Romney filed a bill allowing the death penalty to be re-instated. It was not approved by the legislature. But Romney had reasons for advocating the bill in a particular form, which are unstated, and others had reasons for not approving it, which are also unstated; without the context, the consequence is So what? Why should the reader care about the proposal? Without context and explanation, this is merely another item in the list of non-accomplishments of the Romney governorship. -- Yellowdesk 22:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a link for more information regarding "Melanie's Bill"?
I removed the sentence "Many members of the legislature were themselves trial lawyers and made their living defending repeat drunk drivers" because it does not have a source. I Googled the topic and found references that said there were many lawyers in the legislature but did not say that they made their living defending repeat drunk drivers. -- 140.247.239.24 18:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
is a better source for this point
"Some argue that defense lawyers are fighting the new provisions because they would give an advantage to prosecutors in court. Others say that changes in the law would prompt more of the accused to seek representation."
Actually the article notes that the bill would give prosecuters an advantage over defense laywers in drunk driving cases. Thats BAD for buisness. It is completely relevent to meniton that Romney was trying to push a bill that would give defense layers a DISADVANTAGE through a legislature that contained many defense laywers (5 of 6 in the confrence committee were defense laywers). It is relevent and should be noted as it always has been.-- Cliffhanger7 03:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems strange to me that at the opening of the abortion section it says that "He does not support abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is threatened" yet he also said that he would have signed the South Dakota bill that wouldn't have made the exceptions for rape or incest. If he makes statements that are inconsistant than I don't think we should just put one of them up as his official position.-- Notmyrealname 23:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Cliffhanger, I see the quote in there. I appreciate that you didn't delete the other quotes that I put in, as I think they are very relevant. It might be useful to put this into chronological order to show Romney's evolution in his public stances on abortion. It's been well documented that his public positions have changed and I think it's important to reflect that in this piece. Notmyrealname 01:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
In order to avoid bias, the article should not take a position on whether the bill would cost the state $15 mil or not. I have changed it to reflect that Romney thought it would cost the state that much, but that it is a debated issue (see [8], indicating that according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed watchdog group, the bill would "generate up to $5.7 million in new revenues by 2009.")
I have made several entries, with valid sources, which simply indicate that there is an opposing view to Romney's position on Cape Wind. Who is deleting these and why? It is obvious that someone from the Romney camp is purging this article. Are you embarrassed by his stance on this project?
Governor Mitt Romney supports drilling in ANWR
–Source: Interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews (December 2005); *Governor Romney answered “yes” when asked specifically if he supported drilling in ANWR.
I think taxes are one of the more important issues. Some say Romney has not raised taxes, and some say that usage fees have gone up...Weather the section sound pro-Romney, unbiased, or anti-Romney, I think the section should be one of the top 5 issues, not down at the very bottom. Please offer your suggestions! myclob 01:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Property taxes increased due to reduced state aid. Read what the cities and towns of Massachusetts themselves say:
"Increased reliance on the property tax due to state aid cuts led to increases of more than 6 percent a year for the prior three years (fiscal 2002 to 2004). Prior to 2002, annual increases of more than 6 percent had not been seen since fiscal 1991, during the last state fiscal crisis." [9]
Under the Massachusetts "levy" system, total property taxes are not affected by changes in property values. Each town sets the "levy" or the total amount that taxes need to generate. To simplify, the levy amount is then divided by the total value of taxable property to get the tax rate. Thus, if property taxes go up, tax rates go down, and total property taxes do not change -- unless the city increases the levy.
Some editors have said that they are having trouble reading the Salon article about RGGI. [10] Here are some relevant quotes that I hope are short enough to be fair use. The first is from the part of the article that you can read without signing in. You can read the rest of the article if you watch a brief advertisement (click the link that says "read this article and all of Salon for free") -- Fagles 02:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Massachusetts was supposed to be among them, but in mid-December Romney abruptly pulled his state out -- despite the fact that several staffers in his administration had spent two and a half years and more than half a million dollars negotiating and shaping the deal
Romney had until last month been an advocate and architect of RGGI, which includes a market-based trading system that will let big fossil-fuel power plants buy and sell the right to emit carbon dioxide. As recently as November, he was publicly talking up the agreement: "I'm convinced it is good business," he told a clean-energy conference in Boston. "We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs."
"and a reduction of the sales tax to 5 percent[61]." The sales tax is five per cent, and has been five per cent; long before Romney ever came back from Michigan. Yet, I don't want to delete this without knowing why it was added in the first place. Benefit-of-the-doubt sort of thing. Sahasrahla 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It should sate "income taxes", not sales taxes. There's been a 30-year conversation about income tax rates in Massachusetts. Yellowdesk 06:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
07-01-2004, ROMNEY SIGNS OFF ON PERMANENT ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
07-26- 2006, GOVERNOR ROMNEY APPROVES EXEMPTION FOR TARGET PISTOLS
ROMNEY SIGNS OFF ON PERMANENT ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN Legislation also makes improvements to gun licensing system
In a move that will help keep the streets and neighborhoods of Massachusetts safe, Governor Mitt Romney today signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that forever makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on these dangerous guns.
“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
GOVERNOR ROMNEY APPROVES EXEMPTION FOR TARGET PISTOLS
Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation approving an exemption for the makers of customized target pistols, who due to a provision within state law have found it increasingly difficult to do business in Massachusetts. The law requires gun makers to test at least five examples of all new products “until destruction” in order to prevent accidental discharges. Since specialty target pistols typically sell in small numbers and at higher costs than regular guns, manufacturers have found it uneconomical to sell them in Massachusetts.
“By making this common-sense change to the law we will enable target pistol manufacturers to do business in our state and allow enthusiasts to practice the sport they love,” said Romney.
This site is dedicated to understanding Mitt Romney's stance on Abstinence Education.
!!Quotes from Mitt Romney on Abstinence Education
[04-20-2006], ROMNEY ANNOUNCES AWARD OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONTRACT
I do not see how some one can write that Romney "successfully pressured" Billy Bulger to resign when Romney's staff says that the governor didn't target Bulger. Even if Bulger believes he was the victim of a calculated assault, Romeny denies it. So which is it? Bulger is right, Romney's staff is wrong? Bulger is wrong, Romney's staff is right? The Globe article is wrong? The New York Times is wrong?
Personally I believe Romney did target Bulger. But, if his staff is denying it, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe that he did not successfully pressure for Bulger's resignation.
By the way, the last editing was terrible. Lots of typos and it removed the correct format for the Globe citation. But since I've exceeded my three reverts I'll wait until tomorrow to fix it. Unless someone else wants to fix it. Dubhdara 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned first? Shouldn't the health care bill be mentioned?
Oh, my bad. I don't know about chronological vs importance of events, but I bet finding America is mentioned pretty fast in the Christopher Columbas post. I'm not saying Romney has done anything very big, but I think you put the most important things first. I guess "important" is subjective, were dates aren't, but we can all agree on what were more or less the big events.
The article rather repetitively describes the state legislature:
The Massachusetts legislature is indeed controlled by the Democratic party, but I wonder whether that needs to be repeated each time the legislature is mentioned (it would also be silly to say "Romney, a Republican" every time his name appears in the article). Before changing it, I'm interested in getting other people's opinions. -- Fagles 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think all such references should be styled "Democrat-" rather than "Democratic-" etc (as much as possible) to reduce potential confusion with "democratically-". I found this section heading confusing because of this. 69.87.193.134 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The title of the Governor of Massachusetts is His Excellency. I don't think that Mitt Romney is excellent -- as a Massachusetts citizen, I think that he is a terrible governor. But, that's the title he gets, because that's what Massachusetts law says. It's a silly title, yes, but it is interesting for its unique nature, its history, and as a remnant of Massachusetts' British past. So, please don't remove it, unlikable as he is. -- AaronS 17:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that was true. Forgive me. AgentFade2Black 21:36 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm disagreeing here. Every person seems to have some title these days, especially government officials. I mean: why not put "Honorable" in front of every Congressman's name? While I'm at it, why not put "his excellency" in front of the names of all the previous governors? It's just excessive. Does Kerry Healey get it too? How about Acting Governors? My point is that maybe they're called His Excellency in formal settings, but it's just excessive in an encyclopedia article. -- Mark Adler (Markles) 03:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm a lifelong MA resident and never knew this. I think it's kinda neat! Anyway, was Jane Swift officially referred to as "Her Excellency"? -- DocSigma 16:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Nearly a week later, I fell upon this in the style guide. The infobox was the correct place to put it. Glad we were able to come to the correct conclusion. -- badlydrawnjeff 21:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
On 1/14 I replaced "His Excellency" in the info box. This is indeed the correct title. Any attempts to change this will be reverted. Michael16G
The title should be taken out. We don't include honorific prefixes for other people either. Discuss the title in the article if you wish, but take it out away from the infobox. -- Apoc2400 07:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Which is better in an encyclopedia:
a) Romney recently advocated a nationwide focus on education ... OR
b) Romney recently took a powerful position on education, advocating a nationwide focus on education ...
a) the Governor filed amendments to restore some of the provisions that had been omitted by the legislature OR
b) the Governor filed amendments to restore some of the key provisions that had been omitted by the legislature
a) the legislation that reached the Governor’s desk bore little resemblance to Romney’s original plan OR
b) the legislation that reached the Governor’s desk bared little resemblance to Romney’s original plan <deliberate reinsertion of a grammar error?>
a) Romney has offered an initiative to provide health insurance ... OR
b) Romney has offered a bold initiative to provide health insurance ...
MATTHEWS: Well, there‘s the tough stuff, because, as you know, you‘ve got to make decisions regarding civil liberties and national security which often come in conflict. How do we really do a great job of surveillance if we have people who are very concerned in this country about the Fourth Amendment and other guarantees of our freedom?
ROMNEY: Well, of course, we have to respect our Constitutional guarantees of freedom, recognize that the most important civil right we have is the right to life. And we need to make sure that our citizens are protected and don‘t lose their lives by virtue of not having done an effective job to survey those who would attack us.
Fortunately, in Great Britain, they have a very tough Patriot Act equivalent which allows them to do the kind of surveillance that identifies this plot before five or 10 aircraft end up killing all on board.
That‘s the most important thing that we have to do is to protect our citizens, and we can do it within a constitutional framework that we‘ve come to know and love. But intelligence work and counterterrorism has once again been proven as the only effective way to protect the homeland.
!!Quotes from Mitt Romney on Business
!!Business related press releases
He is a Governor, not a "Republican Politician". Looking at George Bush's profile, they don't mention his political party until 3 or 4 paragraphs in. Now I don't no were to put that he is a republican back in. Maybe someone else can do it.
Also I was looking at George Bush's Bio, and I liked these sections: 1. "Personal beliefs and ideology" 2. "Domestic policy" 3. "Foreign policy" 4. I also think there should be a seperate section for his two candidacies, the Ted Kennidy campaign were he lost and one for the campaign that he won for Governor. 5. Also we should create a "Public perception and assessments " section.
I need to study now, and have no time to educate myself in these issues (reading articles) and writing an article.
Please help!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_w_bush
re: "This page has been absolutely destroyed. What a horror show. EVERBODY TAKE A DEEP BREATH. The new catagories cut up articles and made a mess. Reverting a few steps. Discuss sweeping changes."
I'll talk about it before I make changes, but I tried talking and no one responded to me. I suggested many weeks ago that William Bulger was not the most important thing to date in Romney's governorship, but there was no response.
I do not think the new categories "cut up articles". Previously information about his political campaigns were scattered around everywhere. We should take this stuff out of "Governorship" and delete it, or put it under each campaign. I suggest making a section for each campaign.
Also Mitt’s views on Abortion are mentioned under his Governorship. Mitt has and can do nothing about Abortion as a Governor. He has affected stem sell funding as a governor, but that is a different subject. That is why I put his beliefs on Abortion under a separate category. If you look at Bill Clinton and George Bush’s profile, well I know George has a section on his personal beliefs.
If you say what specifically is a “horror show” before undoing everything I did, I will discuss each change before I make them from now on.
I tried organizing them, but made them their own category, on accident... Do we really need so many Mormonism links with Mitt? Is that really the most important thing about him? He doesn't talk about it, so why should we?
These links don't work:
I changed back Atlanta44's alteration of the formatting of some (but not all) external links. Here's the new style:
This is the correct style:
Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Position_in_article before changing the style.
Even if we did decide to use the (see external link) format, it should be used for all the links. It doesn't make sense to change the style just for some of the links and be left with different formatting in different parts of the article. -- Fagles 16:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there an email address for contacting Gov. Romney, at the governor's office? If so, please include it in the article.
Is there an email address for contacting him at his current/future campaign? If so, please include it in the article. 69.87.193.134 12:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, as stated elsewhere, he lost to Ted Kennedy in 94. I'll change it.
Well I did change it, but someone changed it back. Can we change this wording?
Actually he ran for Ted Kennedy's spot and almost won, before the Olympics thing. So this statement, "Prior to his political career, Romney rose to prominence as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City" is false.
Before becoming Governor, Romney rose to prominence in an unsuccessful 1994 campaign against Senator Ted Kennedy and as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. He is frequently considered a possible candidate for the 2008 presidential election." -- Fagles 03:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
This section so far functions mainly as a forum for editors to post their personal assessments of Romney (e.g. "remarkably successful as a Republican in the most Democrat-dominated state in the country where the state legislature has veto-proof Democrat majorities"). It might be possible to make it more neutral through extensive citation of articles, but doing so would make the section very long given the number of issues about which people could argue: Should he get credit for anything done by the legislature, or did veto-proof majorities make him irrelevant? Who should get credit for the health care bill, him or the legislature? Who should get credit for balancing the budget, him or the legislature? Was balancing the budget good or did it require too many cuts in services? Did he really do it without raising taxes, or do massive fee increases count as tax increases? Who approves and disapproves of his performance on various social issues? Who thinks he was too liberal? Who thinks he was too conservative? Who thinks he flip-flopped? And so on. I think it's better to keep these debates out of the article itself.
The section of links to pro- and anti- sites lets people read what proponents and opponents are saying. I would be fine with someone posting a chart with the results of public opinions polls tracking his approval rating.-- Fagles 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we need a separate section for each of his political campaigns. Right new that information is scattered everywhere else. He ran for office twice. Once to take Ted Kennedy’s spot, and one for the governorship.
Also his personal opinions are all messed up within his governorship. If you look at other politicians websites, like George Bush and Bill Clinton, you will see how this website should probably be organized.
For instance, as a Governor he did do some things about embryonic stem sells, so that would be a good section under his governorship. However, his thoughts on abortion should be under his personal beliefs, because he never did anything about abortion as a Governor.
Any thoughts?
Shouldn’t we have this additional categories? Why were they removed? Is this article getting too long or something.
Also, I re-organized his governorship, and put health care and other things first, but now it is back to how it was. Could someone explain why William Bulger should be more important than Health Care for Mitt Romney? Every article I've ever seen about him has to do with the Health Care thing. I asked this question above but no one responded.
Re: "Finishing clean up of toxic waste dump that has become this article. Domestic Policy? Who thinks up these categories? He is a Governor. Everything he does is domestic policy. Think about edits!"
You don't think Mitt Romney deserves to have a section about anything but domestic policy?
He is a freaking candidate for the president of united states! Shouldn't people understand a few of his biggest beliefs that would affect other things than just domestic policy? Mitt Romney has said a lot of things about Terrorism. Is the president the only one that affects international politics? Why do Governors go overseas than?
And Governors do affect other things than just domestic policy. There are a lot of articles about how Mitt would not give in-state tuition to Illegal Allians. This is an interaction with a foregn government.
I've removed this whole bit from the article as being unsourced, and potentially defamatory if it was not true. Jane Swift's article (where such material should be sourced) has no sources at all! Please source (news reports, Repub. party documents, etc.) this material (in Jane Swift's article) and then re-add this, as it is important to explain why she didn't run(which also would benefit from citation, although it's not defamatory). Removed text: Swift was viewed as an unpopular executive, and her administration was plagued by political missteps and personal scandals. As a result, many Republicans viewed her as a liability who would be unable to win a general election against a Democrat. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Weasel words: "evolved" and "changed"
As the changes I recently made to this article have been reverted by User:Dubhdara (who is apparently also User:24.218.109.71) and by the account User:Atlanta44 (whose only edits have been to this page, and whose first edit was Feb 2006), I will explain and justify them in detail here. I have requested further comment from other Wikipedians about this on IRC; if anyone wishes to add an item to RfC or such-like, I'd certainly appreciate it.
If there are no further objections raised to my changes within a half hour from now(which will be 05:00, 14 July 2006), I request that anyone reading this apply them to the article. I look forward to further discussions about improving the article. Thanks to everyone for their patience. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am NOT user 24.218.109.71! That is an anonymous user. I always post under my own user name. And I intend to keep editing this article. I restored the Big Dig material because it appears that when anyone adds anything that might considered unfavorable to Romney it's deleted. I restored my clarification of the issue about his non-residency for the same reason. Dubhdara 13:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This page is littered with phrasing that makes it read like something from Romney's campaign office. Here are a few examples, but there are MANY more. Until this is cleaned up, I think this tag should remain.
Examples of NPOV violation:
I am not going to get into a revert war, but please leave in the POV-Check tag until this is properly discussed here.
Do not list the accomplishments of his businesses unless you can show that it was the result of Romney's action. You are listing present statistics for these companies, but you do not show that Romney is still working there. The size of Staples is really irrelevant. Please use proper sources.
It is a violation of proper Wikipedia behavior to remove the POV-Check tag without discussing it here. Please see NPOV for more info. A little help please folks? Notmyrealname 23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to Badlydrawnjeff for reinserting this tag. Notmyrealname 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This site is well sourced and well written. It accurately portrays Romney's accomplishments, controversies and changing views on issues. Separately your "proposal" to eliminate columnists as sources is ridiculous. Even though columnists have opinions their work can be used to verify facts. The Will column seems to source the fact that 1) it was the closest election of Kennedy's career and 2) Romney lost by 17 points. These are facts. Any credible source can be used as a verification of facts. George Will (despite what ever you think of him, and quite frankly I am no fan) doesn’t lie about facts. He would be fired. I trust columns such as his as a verification for wikipedia. I vote to remove the banner as I view this to be a balanced site. Cliffhanger7
I think this entry is solid. Everything is clearly explained and well sourced (over 100 sources on this page alone). I happen to think that his opinions are not irrelevant as you seem to think. Romney is a politician and politicians are elected on their stances and opinions. This page even shows how Romney's opinions have change and evolved (I think that’s the word he is quoted as using). I don’t think the existence of Romney's stances warrants a NPOV. The important thing is that his views are plainly stated without bias. The article states Romney’s platform, but does not validate it. The edits on this page have been very responsible and clear. This page has turned into an excellent resource for people. --Michael16G
From the "CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee" section: Romney first obtained national attention when he served as CEO of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games held in Salt Lake City. In 1999 the event was $379 million short of its revenue goals, and there were damaging allegations of bribery involving top officials. In an effort to get the event back on track, Romney was asked to lead the organization of the Games. The Organizing Committee's leadership and policies were restructured, budgets were tightened and fundraising was placed back on track. Under his leadership, the 2002 Olympic Winter Games turned into a spectacular success, clearing a profit of $100 million. Romney himself contributed $1 million, and donated his three years of pay ($275,000 per annum) to charity.
and now from the source, the arch-conservative Weekly Standard: In 1999 the event already was $379 million in debt, and there were allegations of bribery involving top officials. Romney was asked to head up the games. Under his leadership, they turned into a spectacular success, clearing a profit of $100 million. Romney himself contributed $1 million, and donated his three years of pay ($275,000 per annum) to charity.
Of course there should be some description of his tenure at the Olympics. But this passage is lifted, in many cases word-for-word, from a very impartial source. Terms like "spectacular success," "back on track," "budgets were tightened," are subjective and not verified, and not fit for an encyclopedia article. This kind of language permeates this entry. I would hope that this would be of concern to Romney supporters because the partisan language makes the actual facts easy to dismiss as biased. Also, one might hope that it goes without saying that you shouldn't unilaterally remove POV-check tags just because you disagree. The proper way to deal with this is to hash things out on here on the talk page. Notmyrealname 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I've slashed a ton of stuff from the middle section, as it was confusing itself and much too large compared to what's important and the rest of the article. More can be existed, but I figured the rest of you could take a look first before I attempted to possibly slash more. This still needs a lot of work. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 03:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You have utterly destroyed this page and erased relevant, clearly described and sourced information. Your edits have removed important information and smashed the thoroughness of this entry. Do not erase facts. Do not destroy this page. Make responsible additions and contributions in the future. Cliffhanger7
What's with all the Article cited as press source tags? Why are there three of them? What is the press article? Notmyrealname 06:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, this might have been my fault here. I think I may have inadvertently added the source tag when I meant to add a fact tag. Sorry about that. Notmyrealname 05:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have amended the text for the Olympics section so that it does not plagiarize the Weekly Standard column that it cites. Simply citing a source does not mean that you are not plagiarizing if you take text word-for-word and do not put it into quotes. I have tried to edit the content to remove the tendency towards POV.
For specifics, please see my comment above under NPOV.
Please see [13] regarding copyright problems.
For those who keep reverting this text, please be advised that "In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project." This really shouldn't be a big deal. Notmyrealname 18:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mitt Romney}},
A lot of people have done a lot of work. There has been extensive reviews, and discussion. I keep hearing people say that this should be nominated, and so I am doing it.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Myclob (
talk •
contribs) 23:09, 22 October 2006 UTC .
Since the nomination was not properly completed, with an advocacy statement or request for particular aspects to review, and since the article cannot hope to become a featured article for failing to have proper references at the bottom of the article, (see below section References fail to follow policy) the tag for the review was removed today.
Yellowdesk 05:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This section reads like a Public relations item put out by the Romney campaign. It needs comment from legislators that declined to act on Romney proposals, and rationale about why the legislature found other priorities more worth funding. The language is ahem, not of neutral point of view either. Yellowdesk 01:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that Romney has a "credibility probelem." How do you detemine this? How do you back it up? The reason why some of his proposal dont make it is because his legislature is dominated by his opposing party. He doesn't have enough members of his party in the legislature to even uphold his vetos. I am not sure how you can attribute the fate of his proposals to a "credability probelem" rather than partisan politics.-- Waverider5 03:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The Abortion section failed to mention Romney's migration from a candidate that proclaimed his pro-Roe vs. Wade views and sought endorsements from organizations like NARAL or MASS NARAL (Prochoice Massachusetts). The section on Education reads like a press release from the Executive Office of the Governor. Doubtless other sections are in need of a critical and informed eye. A non-pro Romney review of the article is needed to balance the proclamations of Romney's views and place them within the context of Masschusetts and Presidential politics. Yellowdesk 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC).
Disagree on this one. The abortion section is pretty comprehensive. The quotes from the Kennedy section capture his former views pretty well. There is even a few quotes on why he changed his mind.
The article is in general well sourced and pretty informative.-- Waverider5 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This page is a model for other pages to follow. Its clear, well writen an has A TON of sources 9almost 150). the topics are well developed and provide facts, not POV.-- Michael16G 03:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to help the article out. The article is subject to criticism as a candidate for Featured article. It's got some distance to go. Re-instate POV-check. Yellowdesk 02:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)\
Dutch buy? what are you even talking about? whatever analogy you are trying to make doesn even make sense! If the mass legislalature overrides something that mention it. Not much else to say about it. To call this page a "public releations item" is completely ridiculous and dishonest. Everything on this page is backed up with facts. it needs minor tweaking to update certain items, but not much else at this point. -Cliffhanger7
Reinstated POV-check. To the editors that removed the POV-check tag, that removal does not settle the real problems the article as presently written has, nor does it stop the need for a conversation about improving the neutrality of the article. The absence of any description of the failures of Romney's views to have political traction, and his failures to obtain his desires from the Massachusetts legislature, as well as the article's silence on Romney's rhetorical bill filing and and of legislative overides of his vetos indicates that the article lacks some key assessments of Romney's tenure in office as governor. Until this is addressed, the article is a campaign piece promoting the views of the Romney administration without describing the context his efforts, and the why he might have rhetoric that has no traction within the state of Massachusetts. Yellowdesk 05:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the POV banner on the page. I think that this page meets a high standard and does not contain a point of view. All facts and data are back up with an abundance of sources. It is a very through account of Romney's record. As with all wikipedia articles it needs to be tweaked and updated from time to time (especially if Romney runs for president). I disagree with the placement of this banner and vote to remove it.--
Michael16G 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Can't beleive this discussion hasn't been resolved yet. This article clearly meets wikipedia standards. Period.
This nonsense about including the Massachusetts legisilature's views on everthing is mindless. This article is about Mitt Romney. Not the mass legislature. The real reason Romney's bills fail is because he is a republican and I have read that the legislature is something like 90% democrats. Do you need somebody to explain this to you? A Republican governor and a democratic legislature with a huge majority dont agree on things.
The format for governship issues should be (and currently is): Romney does or proposes something, description of proposal, few quotes here from those associated with the topic, and then the result of the action. What elese should we do? Provide POV from every single legislator?
Senator X voted against Romney's plan because he fundamentally disagrees with the Governor's proposal Legislator B voted agaist Romney's plan because he hates the Governor Senator Z voted against the plan because he is bought and paid for by unions. Legislator d voted for it because she flipped a coin.
This suggestion is laughable and an example of overzealous wikipedia suggestion. This page is in great shape. Update it as Romney does things.
This not a one sided article. It includes some pretty unfavorable lines for Romney, especially in the abortion section.
I agree that the banner should be removed.-- Waverider5 01:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
looks like we are having an election. I read this page. It seems ok. I say remove the banner.-- Sierraonfire 02:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The several anti-banner editors who say my critique and effort for greater balance in the article is without merit, may be astonished to find that the first outsider peer-review of the article, associated with
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography, says that the article has many good aspects, is a "Class-B" quality article at present, and explains there is reason for concern about point of view on several sections, with need for analysis both pro and con of the Romney efforts and administration over-all. See:
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney.
Basically, for the article to climb the categories of quality, to
there needs to be a continuing conversation about balance within the article, (as well as other aspects of the article) and removing the banner and stifling the conversation about balance will impair progress in improvement of the article's rating. I think everyone would benefit from viewing that reviewer's more general advice on bringing an article to "Featured Article" status: User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA -- Yellowdesk 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You've got to be careful with a potential section like this. "Criticism" contains the very core of POV.-- Redsox777 02:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, General Court is the constitutional term, but who in California or Florida will care? If they want to know the constitutional name, they can click on the link. The Globe even fails to call it the General Court regularly. Yellowdesk 03:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesnt matter if they care, its the correct term. Other states have unique names for its legislative bodies (Virgina house of delagtes for one) and thy are used. Should we change every reference of "the commonwealth of massachusetts" to "the state of massachusetts?" People in California might not know what a commonwealth is either.-- Michael16G 04:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the corner office term. It should be changed since it is not an offical term. But the "General Court' should stay. Saying that we should "write to an audince" demonstrates a lack of understanding of the purpose of wikipedia. We aren't writing an advertisement to be targeted at people, we are writing an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias dont shy away from correct names and facts. They include them.-- Michael16G 13:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Why then does the the leading journal of record in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe typically fail to use the term General Court in its articles about legislative activity? Yellowdesk 14:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Because the Boston Globe is a newspaper. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Do you understand the difference? For your reference, here is an sample of an article on the Massachusetts legislature from Encarta (an encyclopedia):
"The Massachusetts legislature, known as the General Court, consists of a 40-member Senate and a 160-member House of Representatives. All members of the General Court are elected every two years. The General Court meets every year." (source Microsoft Encarta)
If "General Court" is good enough for Encarta, its good enough for Wikipedia.-- Michael16G 14:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The citation for this is 404. Better source needed. Yellowdesk 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Featured Article is an unlikely outcome of this article. Why not withdraw the template and nomination as a Featured Article, and get a review from people who really are dedicated to reviews, Wikipedia:Peer_review before getting this article rejected as a Featured Article? Yellowdesk 02:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the leading editors of the
Mitt Romney page take a look at the
Wikipedia:Citations_quick_reference, and then look at the more detailed
Wikipedia:Citing_sources, which describes the policies on Wikipedia for citing sources. Unfortunately the
Mitt Romney article (as of October 25, ,2006) fails to use a prescribed system, has partial use of two different systems, and complete use of none. For this merely technical reason alone, the article will fail a
Wikipedia:Featured article review.
It has, nine footnotes of the Wikipedia:Footnotes variety, using the <ref> </ref> markup, and about 150 of the so-called Wikipedia:Embedded_Citations, and none of the embedded citations is shown with complete source-article information in a references section at the foot of the page, as the policy indicates they should.
The refences section is intended to give the reader printing out the article a visual indication of the sources, including especially:
An exemplary demonstration of what should be seen on a reference is desribed in
Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Embedded_HTML_links.
Nevertheless, I actually recommend using the
Wikipedia:Footnotes instead of the
Wikipedia:Embedded_Citations, as you won't have to keep proofreading the article carefully to see if any new references have failed to be put in the References section--they are automatically put in via the footnotes system using <ref> </ref> markup.
==== Embedded HTML links ====
Web pages referenced in an article can be linked to directly by enclosing the URL in square brackets. For example, a reference to a newspaper article can be embedded like: [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html], which looks like this: [14]
In the References section, you should also list a full citation:
*Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''The Guardian'', October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005.
which appears as:
- Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005.
Yellowdesk 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The Featured Article review and nomination process not has yet been started, for failure to follow the procedures of making a proper nomination. Steps 2, 3, 4 and 5 are as yet unaccomplished by the nominating editor
Myclob. See this from the
Wikipedia:Featured_article_review page: (
Yellowdesk 20:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC))
FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting—to addressing more involved issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness and POV.
When listing here, a nominator must specify these criteria and may propose remedies. The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Here, reviewers do not declare "keep" or "remove". If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed; if not, the article is placed on the FARC list. A nomination need not be made with the goal of removal. Minor reviews of articles that are generally up to standard, but may require a copy-edit, are welcome.
Older FAs are held to the current standards. Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances).
After nominating, consider notifying the relevant parties. These include the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the edit history page), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the featured article log), and any relevant WikiProjects. Nominators are asked to improve an article that they nominate for review to the best of their ability.
Nominating an article for FAR
1. Place {{FAR}} (upper case) at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit box. Hit "Save page".
2. From there, click on the "add a comment" link.
3. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top of the subpage.
4. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue. Hit "Save page".
5. Copy {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article}}, hit "Edit" for the "Feature Article Reviews" section, and paste it at the top of the list of nominated articles, filling in the exact name of the nominated article. Hit "Save page".
NB If an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1
Since the nomination of several days ago for Wikipedia:Featured_article_review:
I have removed the {{FAR}} template from this talk page, (the template is the start of the Featured Article review process, when properly submitted),
I propose that a simple Wikipedia:Peer_review be conducted to further the review and improvement process for this article meanwhile. If someone disagrees with this assessment, this is a good place to speak up. Yellowdesk 03:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is the link to the Biography peer review process, with explanations of the various levels of acceptability (Stub, Start, B-Class, Good Article, A-Class, Feataured Article.).
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review
Yellowdesk 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Update: A
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review has been submitted as of October 28, 2006.
Yellowdesk 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The current description of the SEC investigation and Inspector General's report in the Big Dig section does not do an adequate job of explaining what is at issue here. I'm glad that a citation was included for the description of the report as "informal," however, the other changes to my most recent posting only obfuscate the issues relating to Gov. Romney rather than clarify it. A reader would not currently know that what is at question are the Romney Administration's claims on bond filings that it conducted safety inspections that were not, in fact, done. These charges are well documented in the press in the citations I included that were later reverted, as well as in the IG's report. Notmyrealname 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Somebody deleted my post - so I am replacing it.-- Michael16G 13:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I googled this story for more articles, but can't find any more info regarding the status of the investigation. Is this there anything more to add on this? From reading the citations, it looks like the SEC just wanted a copy of a handbook (I guess that's why its informal). I really dont think this is a big deal --- yet. If the SEC launches a real investigation and finds wrongdoing, we should seriously consider expanding this section. But for right now I think its ok.-- Michael16G 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
At first I thought this was a big story about faulty tunnel inspections. Then I read the sources and realized the story is about a typo in a financial document. -Yawn- Lets see if anything more becomes of this typo story.-- Waverider5 03:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I am concerned about the potential for abuse in the external links section. Currently there are multiple entries of "XX for Romney" sites in the National and State level sections. If all states start similar groups we will have quite a collection. Can't we just list one single campaign site and leave it at that? Otherwise this will start looking like a campaign page. Notmyrealname 18:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Dont see the probelem with these. They seem to be different sites.-- Waverider5 01:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I too am in favor of Myclob's proposal for a single link for all pro-Romney sites as well because I can see the potential damage to this work of art down the rode. I'm a webpage designer as well and know how much time it takes to organize everything where it can all be destroyed in just little time. I also think it will help organize his wikipedia pages. (john)
Instead of the recently withdrawn "Featured Article" review, a request for a WikiProject_Biography/Peer review has been submitted. The request can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney. One or two or three experienced reviewers on the Wikipedia Biography project may take the time to review the article.
Anyone may respond to the review request, but it is desirable for people who have not participated in editing the article to comment in this instance.
To see comments at the review location, click on --> Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney
Here is the text of the request that was made, giving guidance to reviewers:
Mitt Romney is a biographical article about the current governor of Massachusetts, who is visible as a likely contender as a Republican candidate for President of the U.S. in 2008. The article has yet to be rated for quality. I speculate that more than a hundred editors have touched this page since it started as a three sentence stub on 10 January 2004. It has had about 1,500 edits. Apparently over the summer of 2006, the article was expanded significantly by several editors, and sources with links were attached to most of the statements and claims in the article. There are about 10 footnotes and 150 embedded links to sources.
Key points and desires, for a review by outsiders:
- General comments that assess its current level of quality and advice on how to improve the article
- It is understood that the article presently fails to follow policy by lacking a listing for citations in a References or Notes section at the foot of the article, and that that makes it hard to scan the quality of the sourcing for the article.
- Since admirers tend to expand on articles about leading living politicians, it is desirable to have specific comment on various aspects of the neutrality and balance of the article:
- a. tone and style of the words used to describe activities, speeches, accomplishments and events, in relation to balance and neutrality
- b. quality of the sourcing and citations (no small task), with attention to balance or neutrality of the sources
- c. an assessment of what is selected topically to be in the article, and assessment as to what extent that topicality indicates a point of view
- d. there is little mention or explanation in the article about the environment surrounding the efforts of Romney, and why and how his rhetoric or actions (whether in speech, or in bill-filing, or otherwise) have achieved modest results in comparison to his desires in the state of Massachusetts. Comment on this environmental aspect of a biography is desired, as several editors have said sections read like a press release from a candidate.
A scan of the talk page's table of contents may (or may not) be informative: Talk:Mitt_Romney.
Yellowdesk 03:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
A first review by a member of the Wikipedia Biography project has been received, and may be viewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney. There may (or may not) be one or two more reviews to follow. Yellowdesk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I see from the comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney that a second volunteer reviewer participating in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography project will not be reviewing this article, because of the multiple hostile comments by Michael16G. I find this regrettable, as any thoughtful and careful review of this article is useful to furthering the goal of obtaining a Good Article or Class-A or Featured Article status. This may make future reviews of the article harder to obtain, when it is known that hostile editors are involved with the article. You can be certain that a review for a Featured Article status would be far more particular than the thoughtful suggestions made by the 1st reviewer. Yellowdesk 02:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Since the first reveiw is a little difficult to make out, with the comments of Michael16G scattered throughout, here's the original version of the review. Yellowdesk 04:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the format of the footnotes I am following, as I convert them from embedded web links. Updated from time to time as clarification may require.
Source for further reading:
Wikipedia:Footnotes
--
Yellowdesk 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The aim is to produce for a Newspaper or Journal something like this at the foot of the page in the notes section:
1. ^ Last_name, First_name. "Title of Article", Journal Name, January 1, 2006, retrieved October 31, 2006.
All parenthesis below are just to make clear a character or two or none is required. No actual parenthesis is used.
Here's the format broken up into multiple lines so you can read it.:
end of sentence getting the footnote(period)
(NOspace) <ref> Author_LASTNAME (comma) Author_FIRSTNAME (period) (space) [http://www.WEBADDRESS (space) (double quote) (NOspace) TITLE OF ARTICLE (NOsapce) (double quote)] (space) (two single quotes) (NOspace) NAME OF JOURNAL (NOspace) (two single quotes)(comma) (space) DATE OF PUBLICATION (comma) (space) retrieved DATE (period) </ref>
to do: cross off checked-on links. Yellowdesk
Sources in process below
One of Governor Mitt Romney biggest focus has been on affordable housing, perhaps because his father was secretary of HUD under Nixon. Romney advocated affordable housing as a way to help the economy, (1) (2). Romney has often advocated smart growth, and criticized sprawl (3). Romney advocated increasing the number of houses in the state as a way to fight homelessness (4). He also blamed a housing shortage as a barrier to “business growth and job creation” (4). Romney used federal, state, and private funds to increase the number of houses Massachusetts (6) (7) (11) (12) (13) (15) (16). Governor Romney used his position as governor to ask towns and cities to build more houses (8). He used state funds to support affordable housing (I think they were state funds) (9). It seems that when he ran out of ideas two months into his governorship he convened a task force (10). Then when it seems that he ran out of ideas again, a year and 3 month into his governorship, he convened an advisory panel (17) and focused on Smart Growth, and
2003
2004
2005
What do you guys think?
Here is a place were you can find working links:
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Affordable%20Housing
I know it needs some work, but it is a start...
User:Myclob Oct 31, 7:34AM Chicago Time
I'm not so sure about this section. I am uncomfortable with the use of the press releases. You should find impartial press items to back up any info that you cite. This page shouldnt be a compilation of Romney press releases. Also how do we know that his father was the reason for the housing plans? Statements like "probably because" are unsutable for wikipedia content. I think we should rework this section. Also, what were the results of Romney's housing proposals? Has the state's affordable housing increased under his administration?-- Waverider5 03:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Myclob Nov 1st, 12:36 PM Chicago.
I would cut down on the press release usage. They only prove what Romney proposed, not what actually happened. This section needs to be revamped. If you dont include news articles you open this section up to crticism that it is too biased. This section gets a "needs more work" rating.
No need to cry, its just Wikipedia.-- Redsox777 02:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind press releases; they can't be the only source: more context is ultimately desirable so that the significance of the activity can be understood from other viewpoints than the Governor's office. Sources that evaluate the activity, and also talk generally about housing in Mass. that would give reasons to understand if this is a momentous, just a good idea, or not so significant. Yellowdesk 18:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to use News Sources, but unlike the state of Massachusetts, the charge you to access their old articles. News sources are not un-biased. They are for profit enterprises, that don't often publish important stuff like a 2008 presidential candadates housing policy, unless the candidates got into a fight over the issue and started calling names. Now that sells. So I went to google news, and clicked on the news archive search option, and found this article, but the Boston Globe required $2.95 to read the rest of the articel:
LEGISLATORS APPLAUD ROMNEY'S HOUSING PLAN Published on January 27, 2004 Author(s): Matthew Rodriguez, Globe Correspondent
Democratic legislators responded favorably yesterday to Governor Mitt Romney's announcement of a $100 million housing program, which aims to create about 5,000 mixed-income units over the next three years.
Called the Priority Development Fund, the program will use reserve funds from quasi-public MassHousing to fund mixed-income developments. The program will put $75 million toward mixed-income developments that are at least 20 percent low- to moderate-income, $22 million toward
Another concern, and one that makes it appear POV to me, is that it is essentially a laundry list of actions taken by Romney on housing. Most of what's here seem pretty standard fare for any governor. Again, what's really needed is some sense of whether Romney's efforts on housing have had any significant impact. I believe MA has pretty much the same abysmal rate of unnaffordability that it did when Romney was elected. The key here would be to find some studies that show what has happened, and how it compares to national trends. Notmyrealname 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Should we have a "criticism" section similar to the Obama page? User:Myclob
- Yes, this article is so biased as it is.
The problem with this page as it stands now is that it reads like a piece of campaign literature. Wiki, as with all other encyclopedias, is supposed to be impartial. There's a lot of spin about what his office would like to call his achievements, accompanied by quite a few inappropriately glossy "official" photographs, and little about controversies, such as his frequent trips out of state to bash Massachusetts at conservative conventions, which were well-covered by both in-state media (the Globe AND the Herald) as well as out of state media such as the Washington Post. For this article to succeed as properly impartial, it needs some balance. Nearly every other '08 presidential candidate from either party (McCain, Guiliani, Brownback, Hagel, Obama, Vilsack, etc.) has a criticism/controversy section in their Wiki article. Some, such as Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, even have their own separate pages of "controversy". Mitt's is completely absent, and sorely needed. All public officials make mistakes and have controversies. Romney's need to be covered in a separate section, just like everyone else's have been. User: huzzah91
I humbly submit that the topic order in this entry have become somewhat random, especially the division between the Governorship section and the "other issues" (a division that seems rather arbitrary and may be a candidate for deletion or rephrasing).
Here are the topics as they currently exist: 1-Health Care 2-Education Initiatives 3-Budget Balancing 4-Same-Sex Marriage 5-Death Penalty 6-Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill 7-Abortion 8-Stem Cell Research 9-In-State Tuition Bill 10-Environment 11-The "Big Dig" 12-Gun Control 13-Crime 14-Minimum Wage 15-William Bulger 16-May 2006 Flooding 17-Khatami Controversy 18-Tar Baby 19-“Affordable Housing:” 20-Taxes
It strikes me that these seem to fall under certain categories. The most important are the things that Romney has actually done, or bills that have been passed. The next would be issues that he has had a hand in or reacted to, but not a central role, and bills that he has proposed but that did not pass. Third would be the minor issues and topics that Romney was somehow linked to (these often seemed important at the moment, but with the passage of time have proven to be tangential), and positions that Romney has taken on issues that matter more to his future Presidential run than his governorship. I think a few of the items on this list could be up for deletion or at least chopping down to a sentence or two. A few of the topic descriptions themselves are more editorial than necessary.
I'll let others offer their thoughts before I make my suggestions. Notmyrealname 20:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The order seems good as is. I wouldnt delete sentances just for the sake of a reorder.-- Waverider5 01:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Sections should not contain information based soley on Romney Press releases. Press Releases generally show only 2 things 1.) Romney quotes and 2.) Romney proposals. Oustide sources such as articles need to be used to affirm the veracity of facts, and the actual fate of Romney proposals.
Also, every single Romney website does not need to be linked to the page. Only major ones should be linked. If they are all posted, it will clutter the page.-- Michael16G 13:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
As Governor Romney is at least contemplating a presidentital race, his use of of a podium based on the presidential podium, and the new seal which heretofore never existed, modeled on the Seal of the President of the United States clearly was done for future political use to help make the governor appear presidential. It's brilliant! The Zieber book documents this, it is cited. Don't get me wrong, I love stuff like this. This is a man who very carefuly manages his image. It makes Governor Romney look like a million,bucks behind it! 03:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link showing an architectural axonometric diagram of the presidential podium. Interesting similarities with the podium Governor Romney had made for himself. Follow this link, take a look, what do you think?: http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/219509
03:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it says the seal was modeled on the Seal of the President of the United States, as it was produced in Romney's administration it seems no leap that the governor's staff did not "sneak" it onto the podium without his consent. Zieber suggests that the action was done to appear more presidential, and cited Gov. Reagan creating a seal for the governor of California (still in use). Thanks for making the pictures larger. 01:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Will, it's fine with me to say the podium is modeled on the one at the White House or of the president's. Mention of the new seal should acknowledge it was produced durng Governor Romney's tenure, modeled on the presidentital seal, and one of the two statements: eitther that when he took office, the governor traditionally used the state seal; or that previous to his administrtion the office of the governor did not have a seal. There is no denying Governor Romney has a very carefully managed image and it is impressive, up there with presidents Reagan and Clinton. Of course running against Shannon O'Brien in '04, who had less than zero awareness of image making, there was no contest on that level. 16:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is why the addition to the caption is invalid.
1. All the information added to the caption is pure speculation.
2. While the podium may look like the White House podium, we have no idea of knowing if it was modeled after it.
3. Romney's administration DID NOT design the podium. A simple google image search shows that this is not the case.
Look. Jane Swift, Romney's predecessor used the same podium here: http://www.mass.gov/guard/E&RC/Operations%20Files/operations%20pic%2021.jpg
and here: http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/winter_2004/images/ft_sheriff2.jpg
and here: http://www.aallnet.org/chapter/llne/LLNENews/v22n3/MVC-010F.JPG.jpg
ALSO Swift's predecessor Paul Cellucci used the podium too: http://www.massbike.org/bikeways/neponset/cell0006a.jpg
Its clear that it is a standard podium used by Masachusetts Governors before Bush and Romney were both in office.
5.It is clear that the seal Romney uses in the picture is NOT designed after the White House seal. The White House seal has an eagle with arrows (see above). Romney is in fact using the Massachusetts coat of arms, just like his predecessors (note the pictures).
6. "Suggestions" by people (Zieber) are not appropriate information for Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias report facts, not speculation or points of view. -- Michael16G 02:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I would organize things by chronological order...
Here is a list of actions, and statements, in order, if you want to use as a reference:
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/veterans
myclob 17:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Atlanta44 deleted my posting in the environment section. Please explain why or I will put it back in. It referred to a current ranking of the MA's environmental spending record in a non-partisan magazine. Seems like it would be very relevant for those seeking to evaluate Romney's record in this area. Thanks! -- Notmyrealname 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
What was deleted? Please post here for people to see.-- Michael16G 02:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I really think this additon is out of place and pretty unimportant. The environemnt section is about enviornmental policy (i.e. the Greeenhouse Gas Pact, off shore drilling, wind farms, etc.). The source shows that the funding pretains primarily to recreational facilites (i.e. pools, playgrounds, paths, and buildings). This has more to do with Romney's budgetary priorities than it does his enviornmental record.-- Sierraonfire 19:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the section is fine, although I do agree that ANWR is out of place. I would leave it where it is, and then move it to the presidential section if he decides to run. This would fall under a presidential platform section. I would keep cape wind in this category as Romney has much to do with it. Approvals muct be run through the state environemtal secretary (who reports to Romney) and proposed legislation would give him and future governors the chance to veto it or lobby the coast guard to veto it.-- 65.96.5.43 22:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The 1994 election section needs some revision. It currently reads "The general election between Romney and Senator Ted Kennedy was extremely competitive leading up to election day. The debates between Romney and Kennedy were lively, and the polls showed Romney only slightly behind Kennedy." But then it says that one poll put Romney ahead. Finally, Romney loses by 17 points (what George Will calls a "drubbing"). So, as it reads now, Romney was only slightly behind (and was ahead) until election day, but then lost by 17 points (which no politician would claim is close). This needs to be revised to say that two months before the election one poll put Romney within the polls margin of error, but then he got clobbered, but not by as much as everyone else who ran against Kennedy. Plus, what is the basis for saying the debates were "lively"?-- Notmyrealname 06:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Governor Romney's religous beliefs and participation in his faith is a part of his story, and who he is, it quite appropritely informs his political actions (opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage). In the last three days, three different users have edited the article to make mention of some of this, only to have it deleted by the users RedSox777 and WaveRider, and listed as absurd, or citing that other potential presidential candidates do not have their religion described in their articles. First, there is mention of religion in several politicians' articles; second, few potential candidates have been as religously active as Gov. Romney, serving s two forms of priests, then as bishop, and having participated on a church board and personally financing the building of a temple in Belmont, Massachusetts. A sub-section on religion in the biography section, or its own section? How should we appropriately list these pertinenet part of this potential presidential candidate's life? This is all cited information, it is not conjecture. Continued diligent deletion of this information is not a resolution, and pushes the article towards fluffiness inviting third-party review. Constant removal of references to his participation in his faith suggests bias. 13:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
A religon secion is completely unprecedented. Why would we make a religon section for one politican and not the other thousands on wikipedia? He is the Governor of Massachusetts, not the pope. Many of the claims in this section are not backed up with sources. Claims about joining preisthoods and financing churhes are not sourced, therefore they are invalid until proven. My guess is that Romney did contribute to his church, but so does virtually every other politican (and it isnt mentioned in their profiles).
What can be sourced is that Romney was a lay minister (bishop) who voulenteer his time with his church during his years in buisness. This is worth mentioning, perhaps in the buisness section of his life.
The only suggested "bias" present is from those who feel that Romney needs to be idefined by his religon. This is not the case with any other politican. Nobody else has a religon section, not even ordained ministers who have served in office (see Mike Huckabee). This section will have to be discussed on the talk page. Please do not repost until a concencus amoungst the editors has been reached.-- 24.218.109.71 17:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Romney is not embarassed by his faith, he is proud of it, and as he cites his religous beliefs in policy making it is appropriate here. To suggest being a mormon bishop is somehow akin to being a lay minister or deacon is incorrect. Romney was a bisop (see wiki article) and a priest (LDS term) in two of the priesthoods of the Church of Latter-day Saints. This isn't a Rotary Club office but a religous one, and one few LDS men achieve. The wiki bios of several potential U.S. presidential candidates do mention religion, and many more members of congress and state governors.
Romney's faith is noteworthy, but does not require its own section at this point. Why would Romney require a religon section if nobody else has one? His faith is already mentioned on the page and in the info box. It isn't hidden, its in the inital bio section and his missonary work is mentioned.
His work as a mormon "bishop" (I am unfamiliar with mormon terms) is widely characterized as "lay" ministry work
Here: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/08/28/romneys_listed_as_big_givers_to_charity/
and Here: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8502
and Here: http://www.masslive.com/springfield/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1151481927311090.xml&coll=1
He volunteerd his time as a lay offical during hs buisness career. I cannot find anything about Romney being a "preist." Unless we can source it, we cannot specualte.
The bottom line is that Romney's faith should recieve the same ammount of focus as oher politicans and candidates. It looks like the page is currently in line with that standard-- Michael16G 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The potential for prejudice based on his relatively unknown religion seems to be a good reason for a bit more discussion. While the man is welathier than most, gifts of several millions of dollars to a church, temple, or mosque, by a potential candidate for U.S. president warrants some scrutiny. In one sense an early openess (v. secretness) can serve to demystify, even innoculate Mitt against future prejudice. 68.163.142.93 13:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that the current mention of Romney's religon is sufficent for this page. A Religon section is overkill. More should be added in a presidential section if the issue of his religon becomes a defining factor. As Notmyrealname points out, authors will have to be respectful if this type of section is needed in the future. Seperatly, I am not sure why Romney needs to be "scrutinized" for his charatable givings to his church or other organizations. I am also puzzeled as to why Romney needs to be "innoculated" from preceptions of his faith and why some think that wikipedia is a forum for this procedure.-- Sierraonfire 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Whereas I doubt that Mr. Romney would be named f/ a mitten, nor glove,... Someone, please say the definitions f/ "Mitt",... & "Wilcken".
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 06:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what the question is here, or where "Wilcken" comes from (Willard?). As for the name "Mitt" I beleive it is part of his given name. I guess your question should be directed at Mr. Romney's parents.-- Sierraonfire 00:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This [19] appears to be a partial revert of my edit [20]. Some questions I have:
This article is heavily biased in favor of Mr.Romney. It is transparent that this was submitted by the Romney camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.81.24 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 26 September 2006 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 5 |
Let's discuss possible changes here. In particular, please do not revert correction of the formatting of external links without discussing it here.
It looks like the reversion undid updated formatting of footnotes. I think it is better to use the new footnote formatting.
Every time I look at the article, the notes changes from two columns, back to one, and back again. I like the two column. It is more efficient with black space, and narrow columns are more easy to read than long ones...
myclob 19:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It does seem to make sense to have the subject headings be descriptions that are comprehensible to people who are not familiar with MA politics - "Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill" and "Health Care" will be more useful subject headings than simply "Melanie's Bill" and "Health Care for All"
This sentence in the article seems a little negative. I think it violates the NPOV 'rule'.
"When polls showed Romney's popularity starting to slip, while state support for same-sex marriage and opposition to an amendment began to rise, Romney scaled back his anti-gay efforts, at least for the rest of 2004."
Mind if I give a shot at cleaning it up?
this whole article is full of bias, there is no criticism of anything, false facts, and a false portrayal of Mitt Romney. He is very unpopular in Massachusetts now.
70.142.206.0 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully everyone likes the new organized format. Perhaps the old format had an advantage, that our discussion could have been organized chronologically. However, I see great value in organizing our discussion by subject, and hope you do also. Questions: I don't know if Ted Danson would be under biography? We should make a new section for "proposed changes", and then as everyone is OK, and they have been changed, then we can move the discussion into a done, complete, past, or reference section...
Using "tar baby" as his nickname is not only untrue, but it also is derogatoryy towards him. The "tar baby" nickname should be removed to not look like an offensive statement.
The way this reads right now, it talks about his residency, and his religion. It needs to be better organized than that. I guess someone removed the ==home== section, is everyone alright with this? Should we create an "old section headings" section? myclob
Natural-born citizen says Romney was born in Mexico, but this article says Detroit. Which one is correct? CryptoDerk 20:31, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I was surprised to read that Romney graduated from Brigham Young - especially as I had heard him speak anecdotally of Stanford. I Googled it. Romney was valedictorian at Brigham Young according to an article located at this website: http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200506031216.asp">
"Romney returned home and married Ann, his high-school sweetheart, when he was 22 and she was 19. Though he attended Stanford for two semesters, he transferred to Brigham Young University and became the valedictorian. "
Is that true? If so, should(nt) something like that be included in his bio?
-Thomas
I agree. I would like to know more WHY did he transfer from Stanford to BYU. Is there an article we can cite that will answer that? Did he not do well at Stanford? Did his faith lead him to attend BYU instead? Was there another college girlfriend that attended BYU? Etc.
I also agree that Governor Romney's place of birth is very relevant. If he was born in Mexico, would that make a difference in his eligibility to become President of the United States? These are things that opposition research should investigate, but to make life easier on everybody, us Wiki fans should find that detail out now....
-Larry
Will somebody mention how such a challenge it would be for Romney to run in 2008, considering how southern Protestants, including Jerry Falwell, take issue with the Mormon religion? Would any conservatives here like to try mentioning this? -Amit
DoorFrame has moved information about Romney's religion to the opening paragraph. I'm moving this point further down the article: looking at a random selection of other governors' entries, it looks like we don't put their religions so high up their entries, and I don't see any reason to single out Romney for special treatment. So far as I am aware, his religion does not have "headline" influence on his performance as governor, so it seems slightly POV to stress it. WMMartin 13:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
In the bio box in the top right section of the page, the religion which Romney belongs is not "Latter Day Saint" but "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", considering that the term "Latter Day Saint" strictly refers to the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", but not the largest denomination or mainstream Latter Day Saint movement.
The category of Latter-day Saints bishops has been deleted from Gov. Romney's page. The list incldes bishops both living and dead, it is not solely a classification of current bishops. Constant removal of references to his participation in his faith suggests bias. 15:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I am curious how he became acquainted with Swahili. I tried doing a simple Google search on this, but the only results mentioning both the governor and Swahili were though that drew from wikipedia as a source. I don't doubt he speaks some Swahili, I'm just wondering if there is more information for this (or perhaps a source).
I don't know? I know he speaks French. Does he speak any other languages?
Is it just me, or does Romney look like actor Ted Danson?
One of the articles says that he looks like Ted danson, but with real hair and more handsome?
I removed the following statement from the article: Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998. as it didn't have a specific source cited. I assume it can easily be backed up from news reports; please cite one or more and re-add it (cited) to the article. Just being careful with possibly damaging information. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Why would a politician’s electoral history be one of the last things on his page? Just because every other politician’s web page is this way, doesn't mean that is the right way! Besides I don't accept the proposition that every other politician’s wiki sight has their electoral history at the bottom of the page. -myclob
Warren Tolman ran in that race too. While I know his share of the vote was not large, I find it hard to believe that it was less than the 1% that Carla Howell got. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Warren Tolman was one of five candidates for Massachusetts governor who competed in the Democratic Party primary in 2002. The other four candidates were Shannon O'Brien, Tom Birmingham, Robert Reich, and Steve Grossman. Shannon O'Brien won the primary election, and was the only Democrat whose name appeared on the final ballot in November 2002.
I'm keeping my finger off the revert button this time, but I wanted to voice a concern about MN57798's recent deletion of Romney's 2008 Presidential aspirations. The deletion stated that it was poorly sourced and that Romney hadn't made it official. The original posting cited a Boston Globe editorial. Romney supporters on this page have recently argued that opinion pieces are legitimate wiki sources. Second, Romney is widely acknowledged to be planning a 2008 run. Just because he hasn't made it official doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed here if there are valid sources. This isn't an official Romney PR page. What's the problem? Also, I don't see what the issue is with listing his comment about the Civil War being a campaign of "Northern Aggression." This seems legitimate to me if there is a valid source. In general, it would be nice if editors of this page discussed their thinking on the talk page BEFORE making major deletions. Notmyrealname 15:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
For the section Possible Presidential Run in 2008 -
Isn't there a better source than Bill O'Reilly for this section? He has zero credibility with a very large number of people. How about a few other commentators, and an article or three from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other national journals? Like this now old blog article
[1]. (I did not check to see if the link still works.
by the way, a review of the "citing sources" pages on Wikipedia will give a hint at the complaints that will be received upon review for a feature article. Many citations are general, and don't indicate how the innocent reader can tell when or how the source said the claimed information. Yellowdesk 01:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we delete the quote from Bill O'Reily. Is it really wise to put in idle speculation from a partisan pundit? This week's Boston Phoenix has a quote that "in his heart Mitt is a sharpie, as cold as he is ambitious." [2] This is about as appropriate as the O'Reilly quote. We could either refrain from putting in quotes like this or we could have a seperate section of quotes, but I would imagine that this would get out of hand once he formally declares his candidacy. Comments? Notmyrealname 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This section is going to need a major expansion--soon. I dont think polls can really tell you anything at this point, but endorsements and the addition of political talent to Romney's campaign are important additions. Its early now, but we should be thinking about this.-- Michael16G 14:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
See how this is the same first heading under governorship on the other page? Pretty neat hu? Let’s keep it this way.
The section on Healthcare is getting pretty long, and the article seems a bit unbalanced. I propose creation of a new article of Healthcare in Massachusetts, in accordance with Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Articles_covering_subtopics. The article could include information about Romney's role in development of the plan, as well as more detailed background information about the current situation and about how the plan works than would be appropriate for this article. -- Fagles 21:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The Romney article should not be split. An independent Health Care Legislation page for further discussion and developments is a good idea but this page should stay the way that it is. The current health care section outlines the plan that Romney proposes in the linked Wall Street Journal op-ed, and that deserves placement on Romney's page.
Also, it makes absolutely no sense to split Romney's views on gay marriage. I don’t know if there is a "Massachusetts gay marriage" page, but Romney's gay marriage position should be displayed in full. -- Michael16G
Put me down as a "no" for the split idea. It would make things too confusing if we were to brake this page up. -Cliffhanger7
This quote is wrong. The sources cited say per capita spending DROPPED. This would mean the ranking by states improved only because one other state dropped their per capita spending to a lower level than Massachusetts. Dreadfully inaccurate and misleading. Yellowdesk 01:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Kudos on that one. The sources indicate that while the state ranks higher in per capita funding compared to other states, the funding has decreased due to budget cuts.-- Michael16G 03:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - - the citations as in the article:
From
Bridgewater State College, near bottom of page:
2002 Rank: 48 Massachusetts $158
From TBF - The Boston Foundation
Let's also note that both sources are...not nationally known summarizers of statistics of this kind.
Yellowdesk 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - -
–Source: press release (May 2005)
Charter School Press Release !!2003 [09-18-2003], ROMNEY ANNOUNCES $6 MILLION CHARTER SCHOOL GRANT
!!2004 [06-23-2004], ROMNEY TO VETO CHARTER SCHOOL MORATORIUM
“Charter schools embrace innovative educational practices that encourage competition and hold teachers and administrators accountable for the academic achievement of their students. Choice within the Massachusetts public school system should be available to all parents, particularly those with children in our low-performing districts.”
This sentence needs a follow-up. When was the initiative announced? What is the outcome? What Do opponents say about it? Yellowdesk 01:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It could use a follow up line.-- Waverider5 02:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It’s not "married to his proposition" it explains this proposal. Don’t forget that this is Mitt Romney's page.
Why can't he the legislature to do what he wants? Because the General Court is predominantly composed of Democrats. Democrats have other priorities in education funding, such as appeasing the teacher's unions that support them. There isn’t much to explain here. Do you need a lesson on two party government and the inability a governor to pass some of his legislation when a legislature dominated by opposing party has a veto-proof majority????-- Michael16G 13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This was removed by Michael16G, Nov. 6, 2006. Worth figuring out how to integrate. and properly cite. Yellowdesk 15:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Romney has cut funding for higher education in Massachusetts by $12 million since joining office. [Source: Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, 6/26/03 & 6/22/06].He also cut almost $3 billion from public schools, health care, and other public services to finance tax breaks that disproportionately benefited the wealthy. [Source: Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, 1/26/05]. Under Romney’s Governorship, between 2002 and 2004, Massachusetts had the largest reduction in K-12 spending in the nation. [Source: Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, 1/2006]
“In my service as Governor, I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventive health practice,” said Romney. “ Abstinence education gives young people the support they need in making the decision to postpone sexual activity until they are mature enough to handle the emotional, moral and financial responsibilities of parenthood,” he said. “This is more than teaching kids to say no – it will help them preserve self-esteem and build character.” From a 05-31-2006 Press Release
!!Quotes from Mitt Romney on Abstinence Education
[04-20-2006], ROMNEY ANNOUNCES AWARD OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONTRACT
!!Links http://www.mass.gov/dph/
There are two "education" sections. One on the state, one for Romney's personal educational experiences. This needs to be fixed. Yellowdesk 01:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I suggest changing the one in the Governorship category to "education initiatives"-- Waverider5 02:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Put stuff about budget balancing here!
This whole Wikipedia is nothing but a piece of online campaign literature. Romney's campaign people are reading it almost daily and deleting anything balanced. Two days ago, this was posted, and then pulled down.
Romney has a mixed record on same-sex marriage. In 2002, he stated that he did not support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage because "it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept." http://www.baywindows.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=3248627AC1DE4AD9BF73F8EDB5DA00AC
Inside of Massachusetts during the 2004 marriage debate and following it, he did not act to prevent same sex marriages when he could have. Many pro-family leaders inside and outside Massachusetts, including columnist Patrick J. Buchanan, Mathew Staver, Esq. of Liberty Counsel http://www.lc.org/ProFamily/mass.htm
and Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst College ("The Missing Governor," National Review Online, 5/17/2004 urged Romney to defy the unconstitutional Court ruling and prevent the marriages via Executive Order. http://www.nationalreview.com/arkes/arkes200405170901.asp
One read of the well-documented "The Romney Deception" http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/s/spip.php?article325 and it will be obvious to Wikipedia that this page is inaccurate and imbalanced. I suggest the page be removed if the practice will be to allow deletions of information which attempt to portray a balanced viewpoint.
Put Same-Sex Marriage stuff here!
I am reverting the edits of User:JamesB3 because:
1. Removed properly sourced info
2. Added incorrect info (e.g., protestant that replaced non-religious groups)
3. The groups listed their own stated purpose – replacing it with a user’s interpretation is POV
4. Listing Log Cabin Republicans as a “moderate” group based on gay issues is entirely POV
5. To only list 1 group is POV – lots of groups have praised and supported Romney
6. There is no stated basis for the flip flopping criticism
-- Noitall 23:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
If you are going to remove anything that I write, at least please try to trim down your own comments. I don't know if you agree with these people and that is why you put so much detail, but something crisper would be far more effective. -- JamesB3 07:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On Log Cabin Republicans, groups can describe their purpose, but whether they are moderate or not is described by others. The only way to get around this is to state the objective of Log Cabin Republicans (promote pro-gay issues within the GOP) and state they identify themselves as moderate, which of course lengthens the article and looks sort of ridiculous, since it clearly is not true. And politicians accept the endorsement of thousands of individuals and groups, including the ones I listed, and noting one select group may be POV. It would probably be acceptable to state, "For his actions, Romney was criticized by Log Cabin Republicans, which promotes pro-gay issues within the GOP and had endorsed him in 2002."
On the orgs, it could be summarized with the words "conservative and family", but I think this does not adequately describe the nature of the breadth of the coalition or its local and national roots.
On the flip flopping, there would need to be more detail and context and sources rather than the conclusory "flip flopping."
-- Noitall 13:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the breadth of this coalition. Catholic and fundamentalist Christian organizations have teamed up before, and they have swarmed in on Massachusetts before, in 2001, in 2002, in 2003, in 2004, to try to pass amendments to ban gay marriage. Some of them aren't as powerful as their names may suggest (mainly the MA Family Institute). While it's certainly important to note that they are working together, I still don't see why every part of their organization needs to be mentioned in this article. Wouldn't it be better to put a link to their site in Romney's article and let people see the organization for themselves? -- JamesB3 20:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-- Noitall 21:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
-- Noitall 01:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I think that "Some legal experts have argued that the original purpose of the legislation was to block interracial marriages and have noted that the law was enacted at the height of public scandal over black heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson's interracial marriages [3] [4] , while Thomas Reilly has stated that the law had nothing to do with race. [5]."
Is better than "Opponents of the law have erroneously stated that the original purpose of the legislation was to block interracial marriages"
-- the sources are pretty clear that the issue is still the subject of debate with experts on both sides.
The section on Same-Sex Marriage is getting pretty long, and the article seems a bit unbalanced with much longer sections on same-sex marriage and abortion than on other topics. I propose creation of a new article of Romney's views on Same-Sex Marriage, in accordance with Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Articles_covering_subtopics. The article could include the growing number quotes from Romney about Same-Sex Marriage that are interesting but would be too extensive for the main article on Romney, and could include more detail about his role in events in Mass. than would fit here.
The Romney article would keep a summary on Same-Sex Marriage (possibly renamed Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Rights, since there's also discussion of antidiscrimination laws, civil unions, and partnership benefits).
The summary could be something like the following:
What do people think? -- Fagles 17:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Naw, otherwise this page gets too fluffy, Mitt stands by his standing up to homosexuals with marriage on their mind and to abortionists. We'll leave it here. 04:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
If nobody else has an opinion about this, I'll go ahead and make the change next week.-- Fagles 02:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Today, you are witnessing democracy in action. On issues of fundamental importance affecting all of the people, it is ultimately up to the people to decide. That is what this Constitutional Convention is all about. It serves as an important reminder that no one person and no branch of government is above the voice of the people. This is as it should be. Amending the constitution is a serious matter and any changes to the document itself should be finely and narrowly drawn. I recognize that the Senate President and the Senate Minority Leader are trying to find a compromise that will satisfy people on both sides of this issue, but their proposed amendment goes too far. The Constitution should not be used to legislate new social policy. A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not a new proposal but rather a codification of longstanding policy and tradition. Civil union language is best left to the legislative process. My hope is the Constitutional Convention will approve an amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. If we do that, we will have taken an important step toward restoring the people’s voice in their own government. - Source: 02-11-2004 Press Release
I agree with the President on the need for a federal marriage amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As I’ve said before, amending the U.S. Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states and to guard against overreaching by the judicial branch. Acts of lawlessness in San Francisco bring into even sharper focus the need to proceed with the process of amending the Constitution. I don’t think anyone ever imagined that we would have courts and local officials defining marriage in a way that has no historical precedent whatsoever, and claiming it’s been in the Constitution all along. Of course, we must conduct this debate with decency, tolerance and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is so fundamental to society that it should not be decided by one court in Massachusetts or by one mayor in San Francisco. In America, the people should decide. In America, the people are fair and tolerant. Let the people decide. - Taken from a 02-24-2004 Press Release
Good afternoon. Our elected representatives met yesterday and took the first steps toward passing an amendment to the state Constitution that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I applaud Senate President Travaglini, Speaker Finneran and all the members of the Legislature for conducting a respectful and thoughtful debate. As we saw, some people feel that the amendment changes the Constitution; I, and many others, feel that it preserves the Constitution. This amendment process began after the state Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage, setting aside thousands of years of recorded history and legal precedent. The Court directed the Legislature to take action as it deemed appropriate. That’s just what the Legislature did yesterday. The Legislature is now on a track to put this issue before the voters. Ultimately, this is as it should be: the people of our state will decide. I know there are deeply held personal convictions around this issue. There are real people and real lives that are affected. On a matter of such significance and with such tender sentiment involved, I would ask that we continue to show respect and consideration for those of differing views. For all of us, the rule of law is bedrock. We’ve seen the lawlessness that has erupted in other states and how it undermines the higher purposes we all seek to preserve. I know there’s been a lot of speculation about what action I will take as Governor of the Commonwealth. Until the Legislature completes its work at the end of this month, I will have no comment on the options before me. But let me state clearly that whatever I do will be within the bounds of the law. Just as the Legislature is working within the constitutional and legal structure of our state, I will do the same. The Legislature has taken the first step. As the process continues, let us hope the final step will be taken by the people. Thank you. - Source: 03-12-2004 Press Release
Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy, distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for asking me to join you today. First, I ask that my written remarks be inserted into the record of this hearing. You have asked for my perspectives on the recent inauguration of same sex marriage in my state. This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intolerance and prejudice. This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. 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. Given the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Congress and America now face important questions regarding the institution of marriage. Should we abandon marriage as we know it and as it was known by the framers of our constitution? Has America been wrong about marriage for 200 plus years? Were generations that spanned thousands of years from all the civilizations of the world wrong about marriage? Are the philosophies and teachings of all the world’s major religions simply wrong? Or is it more likely that four people among the seven that sat in a court in Massachusetts have erred? I believe that is the case. And I believe their error was the product of seeing only a part, and not the entirety. They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights. But marriage is not solely for adults. Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother. Of course, even today, circumstances can take a parent from the home, but the child still has a mother and a father. If the parents are divorced, the child can visit each of them. If a mother or father is deceased, the child can learn about the qualities of the departed. His or her psychological development can still be influenced by the contrasting features of both genders. Are we ready to usher in a society indifferent about having fathers and mothers? Will our children be indifferent about having a mother and a father? My Department of Public Health has asked whether we must re-write our state birth certificates to conform to our Court’s same-sex marriage ruling. Must we remove “father” and “mother” and replace them with “parent A” and “parent B?” What should be the ideal for raising a child: not a village, not “parent A” and “parent B,” but a mother and a father. Marriage is about even more than children and adults. The family unit is the structural underpinning of all successful societies. And, it is the single-most powerful force that preserves society across generations, through centuries. Scientific studies of children raised by same sex couples are almost non-existent. And the societal implications and effects on these children are not likely to be observed for at least a generation, probably several generations. Same sex marriage doesn’t hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years. Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing. One person may choose to live as a single, even to have and raise her own child. Others may choose to live in same sex partnerships or civil arrangements. There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding. But there is a difference between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights, but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all. Some have asked why so much importance is attached to the word “marriage.” It is because changing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same sex practice. It is inconceivable that promoting absolute indifference between heterosexual and homosexual unions would not significantly effect child development, family dynamics, and societal structures. Among the structures that would be affected would be religious and certain charitable institutions. Those with scriptural or other immutable founding principles will be castigated. Ultimately, some may founder. We need more from these institutions, not less, and particularly so to support and strengthen those in greatest need. Society can ill afford further erosion of charitable and virtuous institutions. For these reasons, I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment. Some retreat from the concept of amendment, per se. While they say they agree with the traditional definition of marriage, they hesitate to amend. But amendment is a vital and necessary aspect of our constitutional democracy, not an aberration. The constitution’s framers recognized that any one of the three branches of government might overstep its separated powers. If Congress oversteps, the Court can intervene. If the Executive overreaches, Congress may impeach. And if the Court launches beyond the constitution, the legislative branch may amend. The four Massachusetts justices launched beyond our constitution. That is why the Massachusetts legislature has begun the lengthy amendment process. There is further cause for amendment. Our framers debated nothing more fully than they debated the reach and boundaries of what we call federalism. States retained certain powers upon which the federal government could not infringe. By the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, our state has begun to assert power over all the other states. It is a state infringing on the powers of other states. In Massachusetts, we have a law that attempts to restrain this infringement on other states by restricting marriages of out-of-state couples to those where no impediment to marry exists in their home state. Even with this law, valid same sex marriages will migrate to other states. For each state to preserve its own power in relation to marriage, within the principle of Federalism, a federal amendment to define marriage is necessary. This is not a mere political issue. It is more than a matter of adult rights. It is a societal issue. It encompasses the preservation of a structure that has formed the basis of all known successful civilizations. With a matter as vital to society as marriage, I am troubled when I see an intolerant few wrap the marriage debate with their bias and prejudice. I am also troubled by those on the other side of the issue who equate respect for traditional marriage with intolerance. The majority of Americans believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but they are also firmly committed to respect, and even fight for civil rights, individual freedoms and tolerance. Saying otherwise is wrong, demeaning and offensive. As a society, we must be able to recognize the salutary effect, for children, of having a mother and a father while at the same time respecting the civil rights and equality of all citizens. Thank you. - Taken from a 06-22-2004 Press Release
Death Penalty section...this needs an update. Who is for it, who is not, is it a dead letter or what? Yellowdesk 04:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The bill, filed April 28, 2005, ...
What are you mising? The bill was proposed and it was defeated by the legislature. This is a complete section. Please read the text provided before you creat superflous sections on the talk page.--
Michael16G 13:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
If that were all there is to it, then the entry should merely be: Romney filed a bill allowing the death penalty to be re-instated. It was not approved by the legislature. But Romney had reasons for advocating the bill in a particular form, which are unstated, and others had reasons for not approving it, which are also unstated; without the context, the consequence is So what? Why should the reader care about the proposal? Without context and explanation, this is merely another item in the list of non-accomplishments of the Romney governorship. -- Yellowdesk 22:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a link for more information regarding "Melanie's Bill"?
I removed the sentence "Many members of the legislature were themselves trial lawyers and made their living defending repeat drunk drivers" because it does not have a source. I Googled the topic and found references that said there were many lawyers in the legislature but did not say that they made their living defending repeat drunk drivers. -- 140.247.239.24 18:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
is a better source for this point
"Some argue that defense lawyers are fighting the new provisions because they would give an advantage to prosecutors in court. Others say that changes in the law would prompt more of the accused to seek representation."
Actually the article notes that the bill would give prosecuters an advantage over defense laywers in drunk driving cases. Thats BAD for buisness. It is completely relevent to meniton that Romney was trying to push a bill that would give defense layers a DISADVANTAGE through a legislature that contained many defense laywers (5 of 6 in the confrence committee were defense laywers). It is relevent and should be noted as it always has been.-- Cliffhanger7 03:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems strange to me that at the opening of the abortion section it says that "He does not support abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is threatened" yet he also said that he would have signed the South Dakota bill that wouldn't have made the exceptions for rape or incest. If he makes statements that are inconsistant than I don't think we should just put one of them up as his official position.-- Notmyrealname 23:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Cliffhanger, I see the quote in there. I appreciate that you didn't delete the other quotes that I put in, as I think they are very relevant. It might be useful to put this into chronological order to show Romney's evolution in his public stances on abortion. It's been well documented that his public positions have changed and I think it's important to reflect that in this piece. Notmyrealname 01:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
In order to avoid bias, the article should not take a position on whether the bill would cost the state $15 mil or not. I have changed it to reflect that Romney thought it would cost the state that much, but that it is a debated issue (see [8], indicating that according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed watchdog group, the bill would "generate up to $5.7 million in new revenues by 2009.")
I have made several entries, with valid sources, which simply indicate that there is an opposing view to Romney's position on Cape Wind. Who is deleting these and why? It is obvious that someone from the Romney camp is purging this article. Are you embarrassed by his stance on this project?
Governor Mitt Romney supports drilling in ANWR
–Source: Interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews (December 2005); *Governor Romney answered “yes” when asked specifically if he supported drilling in ANWR.
I think taxes are one of the more important issues. Some say Romney has not raised taxes, and some say that usage fees have gone up...Weather the section sound pro-Romney, unbiased, or anti-Romney, I think the section should be one of the top 5 issues, not down at the very bottom. Please offer your suggestions! myclob 01:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Property taxes increased due to reduced state aid. Read what the cities and towns of Massachusetts themselves say:
"Increased reliance on the property tax due to state aid cuts led to increases of more than 6 percent a year for the prior three years (fiscal 2002 to 2004). Prior to 2002, annual increases of more than 6 percent had not been seen since fiscal 1991, during the last state fiscal crisis." [9]
Under the Massachusetts "levy" system, total property taxes are not affected by changes in property values. Each town sets the "levy" or the total amount that taxes need to generate. To simplify, the levy amount is then divided by the total value of taxable property to get the tax rate. Thus, if property taxes go up, tax rates go down, and total property taxes do not change -- unless the city increases the levy.
Some editors have said that they are having trouble reading the Salon article about RGGI. [10] Here are some relevant quotes that I hope are short enough to be fair use. The first is from the part of the article that you can read without signing in. You can read the rest of the article if you watch a brief advertisement (click the link that says "read this article and all of Salon for free") -- Fagles 02:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Massachusetts was supposed to be among them, but in mid-December Romney abruptly pulled his state out -- despite the fact that several staffers in his administration had spent two and a half years and more than half a million dollars negotiating and shaping the deal
Romney had until last month been an advocate and architect of RGGI, which includes a market-based trading system that will let big fossil-fuel power plants buy and sell the right to emit carbon dioxide. As recently as November, he was publicly talking up the agreement: "I'm convinced it is good business," he told a clean-energy conference in Boston. "We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs."
"and a reduction of the sales tax to 5 percent[61]." The sales tax is five per cent, and has been five per cent; long before Romney ever came back from Michigan. Yet, I don't want to delete this without knowing why it was added in the first place. Benefit-of-the-doubt sort of thing. Sahasrahla 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It should sate "income taxes", not sales taxes. There's been a 30-year conversation about income tax rates in Massachusetts. Yellowdesk 06:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
07-01-2004, ROMNEY SIGNS OFF ON PERMANENT ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
07-26- 2006, GOVERNOR ROMNEY APPROVES EXEMPTION FOR TARGET PISTOLS
ROMNEY SIGNS OFF ON PERMANENT ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN Legislation also makes improvements to gun licensing system
In a move that will help keep the streets and neighborhoods of Massachusetts safe, Governor Mitt Romney today signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that forever makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on these dangerous guns.
“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
GOVERNOR ROMNEY APPROVES EXEMPTION FOR TARGET PISTOLS
Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation approving an exemption for the makers of customized target pistols, who due to a provision within state law have found it increasingly difficult to do business in Massachusetts. The law requires gun makers to test at least five examples of all new products “until destruction” in order to prevent accidental discharges. Since specialty target pistols typically sell in small numbers and at higher costs than regular guns, manufacturers have found it uneconomical to sell them in Massachusetts.
“By making this common-sense change to the law we will enable target pistol manufacturers to do business in our state and allow enthusiasts to practice the sport they love,” said Romney.
This site is dedicated to understanding Mitt Romney's stance on Abstinence Education.
!!Quotes from Mitt Romney on Abstinence Education
[04-20-2006], ROMNEY ANNOUNCES AWARD OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONTRACT
I do not see how some one can write that Romney "successfully pressured" Billy Bulger to resign when Romney's staff says that the governor didn't target Bulger. Even if Bulger believes he was the victim of a calculated assault, Romeny denies it. So which is it? Bulger is right, Romney's staff is wrong? Bulger is wrong, Romney's staff is right? The Globe article is wrong? The New York Times is wrong?
Personally I believe Romney did target Bulger. But, if his staff is denying it, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe that he did not successfully pressure for Bulger's resignation.
By the way, the last editing was terrible. Lots of typos and it removed the correct format for the Globe citation. But since I've exceeded my three reverts I'll wait until tomorrow to fix it. Unless someone else wants to fix it. Dubhdara 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned first? Shouldn't the health care bill be mentioned?
Oh, my bad. I don't know about chronological vs importance of events, but I bet finding America is mentioned pretty fast in the Christopher Columbas post. I'm not saying Romney has done anything very big, but I think you put the most important things first. I guess "important" is subjective, were dates aren't, but we can all agree on what were more or less the big events.
The article rather repetitively describes the state legislature:
The Massachusetts legislature is indeed controlled by the Democratic party, but I wonder whether that needs to be repeated each time the legislature is mentioned (it would also be silly to say "Romney, a Republican" every time his name appears in the article). Before changing it, I'm interested in getting other people's opinions. -- Fagles 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think all such references should be styled "Democrat-" rather than "Democratic-" etc (as much as possible) to reduce potential confusion with "democratically-". I found this section heading confusing because of this. 69.87.193.134 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The title of the Governor of Massachusetts is His Excellency. I don't think that Mitt Romney is excellent -- as a Massachusetts citizen, I think that he is a terrible governor. But, that's the title he gets, because that's what Massachusetts law says. It's a silly title, yes, but it is interesting for its unique nature, its history, and as a remnant of Massachusetts' British past. So, please don't remove it, unlikable as he is. -- AaronS 17:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that was true. Forgive me. AgentFade2Black 21:36 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm disagreeing here. Every person seems to have some title these days, especially government officials. I mean: why not put "Honorable" in front of every Congressman's name? While I'm at it, why not put "his excellency" in front of the names of all the previous governors? It's just excessive. Does Kerry Healey get it too? How about Acting Governors? My point is that maybe they're called His Excellency in formal settings, but it's just excessive in an encyclopedia article. -- Mark Adler (Markles) 03:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm a lifelong MA resident and never knew this. I think it's kinda neat! Anyway, was Jane Swift officially referred to as "Her Excellency"? -- DocSigma 16:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Nearly a week later, I fell upon this in the style guide. The infobox was the correct place to put it. Glad we were able to come to the correct conclusion. -- badlydrawnjeff 21:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
On 1/14 I replaced "His Excellency" in the info box. This is indeed the correct title. Any attempts to change this will be reverted. Michael16G
The title should be taken out. We don't include honorific prefixes for other people either. Discuss the title in the article if you wish, but take it out away from the infobox. -- Apoc2400 07:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Which is better in an encyclopedia:
a) Romney recently advocated a nationwide focus on education ... OR
b) Romney recently took a powerful position on education, advocating a nationwide focus on education ...
a) the Governor filed amendments to restore some of the provisions that had been omitted by the legislature OR
b) the Governor filed amendments to restore some of the key provisions that had been omitted by the legislature
a) the legislation that reached the Governor’s desk bore little resemblance to Romney’s original plan OR
b) the legislation that reached the Governor’s desk bared little resemblance to Romney’s original plan <deliberate reinsertion of a grammar error?>
a) Romney has offered an initiative to provide health insurance ... OR
b) Romney has offered a bold initiative to provide health insurance ...
MATTHEWS: Well, there‘s the tough stuff, because, as you know, you‘ve got to make decisions regarding civil liberties and national security which often come in conflict. How do we really do a great job of surveillance if we have people who are very concerned in this country about the Fourth Amendment and other guarantees of our freedom?
ROMNEY: Well, of course, we have to respect our Constitutional guarantees of freedom, recognize that the most important civil right we have is the right to life. And we need to make sure that our citizens are protected and don‘t lose their lives by virtue of not having done an effective job to survey those who would attack us.
Fortunately, in Great Britain, they have a very tough Patriot Act equivalent which allows them to do the kind of surveillance that identifies this plot before five or 10 aircraft end up killing all on board.
That‘s the most important thing that we have to do is to protect our citizens, and we can do it within a constitutional framework that we‘ve come to know and love. But intelligence work and counterterrorism has once again been proven as the only effective way to protect the homeland.
!!Quotes from Mitt Romney on Business
!!Business related press releases
He is a Governor, not a "Republican Politician". Looking at George Bush's profile, they don't mention his political party until 3 or 4 paragraphs in. Now I don't no were to put that he is a republican back in. Maybe someone else can do it.
Also I was looking at George Bush's Bio, and I liked these sections: 1. "Personal beliefs and ideology" 2. "Domestic policy" 3. "Foreign policy" 4. I also think there should be a seperate section for his two candidacies, the Ted Kennidy campaign were he lost and one for the campaign that he won for Governor. 5. Also we should create a "Public perception and assessments " section.
I need to study now, and have no time to educate myself in these issues (reading articles) and writing an article.
Please help!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_w_bush
re: "This page has been absolutely destroyed. What a horror show. EVERBODY TAKE A DEEP BREATH. The new catagories cut up articles and made a mess. Reverting a few steps. Discuss sweeping changes."
I'll talk about it before I make changes, but I tried talking and no one responded to me. I suggested many weeks ago that William Bulger was not the most important thing to date in Romney's governorship, but there was no response.
I do not think the new categories "cut up articles". Previously information about his political campaigns were scattered around everywhere. We should take this stuff out of "Governorship" and delete it, or put it under each campaign. I suggest making a section for each campaign.
Also Mitt’s views on Abortion are mentioned under his Governorship. Mitt has and can do nothing about Abortion as a Governor. He has affected stem sell funding as a governor, but that is a different subject. That is why I put his beliefs on Abortion under a separate category. If you look at Bill Clinton and George Bush’s profile, well I know George has a section on his personal beliefs.
If you say what specifically is a “horror show” before undoing everything I did, I will discuss each change before I make them from now on.
I tried organizing them, but made them their own category, on accident... Do we really need so many Mormonism links with Mitt? Is that really the most important thing about him? He doesn't talk about it, so why should we?
These links don't work:
I changed back Atlanta44's alteration of the formatting of some (but not all) external links. Here's the new style:
This is the correct style:
Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Position_in_article before changing the style.
Even if we did decide to use the (see external link) format, it should be used for all the links. It doesn't make sense to change the style just for some of the links and be left with different formatting in different parts of the article. -- Fagles 16:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there an email address for contacting Gov. Romney, at the governor's office? If so, please include it in the article.
Is there an email address for contacting him at his current/future campaign? If so, please include it in the article. 69.87.193.134 12:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, as stated elsewhere, he lost to Ted Kennedy in 94. I'll change it.
Well I did change it, but someone changed it back. Can we change this wording?
Actually he ran for Ted Kennedy's spot and almost won, before the Olympics thing. So this statement, "Prior to his political career, Romney rose to prominence as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City" is false.
Before becoming Governor, Romney rose to prominence in an unsuccessful 1994 campaign against Senator Ted Kennedy and as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. He is frequently considered a possible candidate for the 2008 presidential election." -- Fagles 03:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
This section so far functions mainly as a forum for editors to post their personal assessments of Romney (e.g. "remarkably successful as a Republican in the most Democrat-dominated state in the country where the state legislature has veto-proof Democrat majorities"). It might be possible to make it more neutral through extensive citation of articles, but doing so would make the section very long given the number of issues about which people could argue: Should he get credit for anything done by the legislature, or did veto-proof majorities make him irrelevant? Who should get credit for the health care bill, him or the legislature? Who should get credit for balancing the budget, him or the legislature? Was balancing the budget good or did it require too many cuts in services? Did he really do it without raising taxes, or do massive fee increases count as tax increases? Who approves and disapproves of his performance on various social issues? Who thinks he was too liberal? Who thinks he was too conservative? Who thinks he flip-flopped? And so on. I think it's better to keep these debates out of the article itself.
The section of links to pro- and anti- sites lets people read what proponents and opponents are saying. I would be fine with someone posting a chart with the results of public opinions polls tracking his approval rating.-- Fagles 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we need a separate section for each of his political campaigns. Right new that information is scattered everywhere else. He ran for office twice. Once to take Ted Kennedy’s spot, and one for the governorship.
Also his personal opinions are all messed up within his governorship. If you look at other politicians websites, like George Bush and Bill Clinton, you will see how this website should probably be organized.
For instance, as a Governor he did do some things about embryonic stem sells, so that would be a good section under his governorship. However, his thoughts on abortion should be under his personal beliefs, because he never did anything about abortion as a Governor.
Any thoughts?
Shouldn’t we have this additional categories? Why were they removed? Is this article getting too long or something.
Also, I re-organized his governorship, and put health care and other things first, but now it is back to how it was. Could someone explain why William Bulger should be more important than Health Care for Mitt Romney? Every article I've ever seen about him has to do with the Health Care thing. I asked this question above but no one responded.
Re: "Finishing clean up of toxic waste dump that has become this article. Domestic Policy? Who thinks up these categories? He is a Governor. Everything he does is domestic policy. Think about edits!"
You don't think Mitt Romney deserves to have a section about anything but domestic policy?
He is a freaking candidate for the president of united states! Shouldn't people understand a few of his biggest beliefs that would affect other things than just domestic policy? Mitt Romney has said a lot of things about Terrorism. Is the president the only one that affects international politics? Why do Governors go overseas than?
And Governors do affect other things than just domestic policy. There are a lot of articles about how Mitt would not give in-state tuition to Illegal Allians. This is an interaction with a foregn government.
I've removed this whole bit from the article as being unsourced, and potentially defamatory if it was not true. Jane Swift's article (where such material should be sourced) has no sources at all! Please source (news reports, Repub. party documents, etc.) this material (in Jane Swift's article) and then re-add this, as it is important to explain why she didn't run(which also would benefit from citation, although it's not defamatory). Removed text: Swift was viewed as an unpopular executive, and her administration was plagued by political missteps and personal scandals. As a result, many Republicans viewed her as a liability who would be unable to win a general election against a Democrat. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Weasel words: "evolved" and "changed"
As the changes I recently made to this article have been reverted by User:Dubhdara (who is apparently also User:24.218.109.71) and by the account User:Atlanta44 (whose only edits have been to this page, and whose first edit was Feb 2006), I will explain and justify them in detail here. I have requested further comment from other Wikipedians about this on IRC; if anyone wishes to add an item to RfC or such-like, I'd certainly appreciate it.
If there are no further objections raised to my changes within a half hour from now(which will be 05:00, 14 July 2006), I request that anyone reading this apply them to the article. I look forward to further discussions about improving the article. Thanks to everyone for their patience. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I am NOT user 24.218.109.71! That is an anonymous user. I always post under my own user name. And I intend to keep editing this article. I restored the Big Dig material because it appears that when anyone adds anything that might considered unfavorable to Romney it's deleted. I restored my clarification of the issue about his non-residency for the same reason. Dubhdara 13:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This page is littered with phrasing that makes it read like something from Romney's campaign office. Here are a few examples, but there are MANY more. Until this is cleaned up, I think this tag should remain.
Examples of NPOV violation:
I am not going to get into a revert war, but please leave in the POV-Check tag until this is properly discussed here.
Do not list the accomplishments of his businesses unless you can show that it was the result of Romney's action. You are listing present statistics for these companies, but you do not show that Romney is still working there. The size of Staples is really irrelevant. Please use proper sources.
It is a violation of proper Wikipedia behavior to remove the POV-Check tag without discussing it here. Please see NPOV for more info. A little help please folks? Notmyrealname 23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to Badlydrawnjeff for reinserting this tag. Notmyrealname 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This site is well sourced and well written. It accurately portrays Romney's accomplishments, controversies and changing views on issues. Separately your "proposal" to eliminate columnists as sources is ridiculous. Even though columnists have opinions their work can be used to verify facts. The Will column seems to source the fact that 1) it was the closest election of Kennedy's career and 2) Romney lost by 17 points. These are facts. Any credible source can be used as a verification of facts. George Will (despite what ever you think of him, and quite frankly I am no fan) doesn’t lie about facts. He would be fired. I trust columns such as his as a verification for wikipedia. I vote to remove the banner as I view this to be a balanced site. Cliffhanger7
I think this entry is solid. Everything is clearly explained and well sourced (over 100 sources on this page alone). I happen to think that his opinions are not irrelevant as you seem to think. Romney is a politician and politicians are elected on their stances and opinions. This page even shows how Romney's opinions have change and evolved (I think that’s the word he is quoted as using). I don’t think the existence of Romney's stances warrants a NPOV. The important thing is that his views are plainly stated without bias. The article states Romney’s platform, but does not validate it. The edits on this page have been very responsible and clear. This page has turned into an excellent resource for people. --Michael16G
From the "CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee" section: Romney first obtained national attention when he served as CEO of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games held in Salt Lake City. In 1999 the event was $379 million short of its revenue goals, and there were damaging allegations of bribery involving top officials. In an effort to get the event back on track, Romney was asked to lead the organization of the Games. The Organizing Committee's leadership and policies were restructured, budgets were tightened and fundraising was placed back on track. Under his leadership, the 2002 Olympic Winter Games turned into a spectacular success, clearing a profit of $100 million. Romney himself contributed $1 million, and donated his three years of pay ($275,000 per annum) to charity.
and now from the source, the arch-conservative Weekly Standard: In 1999 the event already was $379 million in debt, and there were allegations of bribery involving top officials. Romney was asked to head up the games. Under his leadership, they turned into a spectacular success, clearing a profit of $100 million. Romney himself contributed $1 million, and donated his three years of pay ($275,000 per annum) to charity.
Of course there should be some description of his tenure at the Olympics. But this passage is lifted, in many cases word-for-word, from a very impartial source. Terms like "spectacular success," "back on track," "budgets were tightened," are subjective and not verified, and not fit for an encyclopedia article. This kind of language permeates this entry. I would hope that this would be of concern to Romney supporters because the partisan language makes the actual facts easy to dismiss as biased. Also, one might hope that it goes without saying that you shouldn't unilaterally remove POV-check tags just because you disagree. The proper way to deal with this is to hash things out on here on the talk page. Notmyrealname 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I've slashed a ton of stuff from the middle section, as it was confusing itself and much too large compared to what's important and the rest of the article. More can be existed, but I figured the rest of you could take a look first before I attempted to possibly slash more. This still needs a lot of work. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 03:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You have utterly destroyed this page and erased relevant, clearly described and sourced information. Your edits have removed important information and smashed the thoroughness of this entry. Do not erase facts. Do not destroy this page. Make responsible additions and contributions in the future. Cliffhanger7
What's with all the Article cited as press source tags? Why are there three of them? What is the press article? Notmyrealname 06:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, this might have been my fault here. I think I may have inadvertently added the source tag when I meant to add a fact tag. Sorry about that. Notmyrealname 05:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have amended the text for the Olympics section so that it does not plagiarize the Weekly Standard column that it cites. Simply citing a source does not mean that you are not plagiarizing if you take text word-for-word and do not put it into quotes. I have tried to edit the content to remove the tendency towards POV.
For specifics, please see my comment above under NPOV.
Please see [13] regarding copyright problems.
For those who keep reverting this text, please be advised that "In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project." This really shouldn't be a big deal. Notmyrealname 18:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mitt Romney}},
A lot of people have done a lot of work. There has been extensive reviews, and discussion. I keep hearing people say that this should be nominated, and so I am doing it.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Myclob (
talk •
contribs) 23:09, 22 October 2006 UTC .
Since the nomination was not properly completed, with an advocacy statement or request for particular aspects to review, and since the article cannot hope to become a featured article for failing to have proper references at the bottom of the article, (see below section References fail to follow policy) the tag for the review was removed today.
Yellowdesk 05:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This section reads like a Public relations item put out by the Romney campaign. It needs comment from legislators that declined to act on Romney proposals, and rationale about why the legislature found other priorities more worth funding. The language is ahem, not of neutral point of view either. Yellowdesk 01:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that Romney has a "credibility probelem." How do you detemine this? How do you back it up? The reason why some of his proposal dont make it is because his legislature is dominated by his opposing party. He doesn't have enough members of his party in the legislature to even uphold his vetos. I am not sure how you can attribute the fate of his proposals to a "credability probelem" rather than partisan politics.-- Waverider5 03:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The Abortion section failed to mention Romney's migration from a candidate that proclaimed his pro-Roe vs. Wade views and sought endorsements from organizations like NARAL or MASS NARAL (Prochoice Massachusetts). The section on Education reads like a press release from the Executive Office of the Governor. Doubtless other sections are in need of a critical and informed eye. A non-pro Romney review of the article is needed to balance the proclamations of Romney's views and place them within the context of Masschusetts and Presidential politics. Yellowdesk 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC).
Disagree on this one. The abortion section is pretty comprehensive. The quotes from the Kennedy section capture his former views pretty well. There is even a few quotes on why he changed his mind.
The article is in general well sourced and pretty informative.-- Waverider5 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This page is a model for other pages to follow. Its clear, well writen an has A TON of sources 9almost 150). the topics are well developed and provide facts, not POV.-- Michael16G 03:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to help the article out. The article is subject to criticism as a candidate for Featured article. It's got some distance to go. Re-instate POV-check. Yellowdesk 02:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)\
Dutch buy? what are you even talking about? whatever analogy you are trying to make doesn even make sense! If the mass legislalature overrides something that mention it. Not much else to say about it. To call this page a "public releations item" is completely ridiculous and dishonest. Everything on this page is backed up with facts. it needs minor tweaking to update certain items, but not much else at this point. -Cliffhanger7
Reinstated POV-check. To the editors that removed the POV-check tag, that removal does not settle the real problems the article as presently written has, nor does it stop the need for a conversation about improving the neutrality of the article. The absence of any description of the failures of Romney's views to have political traction, and his failures to obtain his desires from the Massachusetts legislature, as well as the article's silence on Romney's rhetorical bill filing and and of legislative overides of his vetos indicates that the article lacks some key assessments of Romney's tenure in office as governor. Until this is addressed, the article is a campaign piece promoting the views of the Romney administration without describing the context his efforts, and the why he might have rhetoric that has no traction within the state of Massachusetts. Yellowdesk 05:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the POV banner on the page. I think that this page meets a high standard and does not contain a point of view. All facts and data are back up with an abundance of sources. It is a very through account of Romney's record. As with all wikipedia articles it needs to be tweaked and updated from time to time (especially if Romney runs for president). I disagree with the placement of this banner and vote to remove it.--
Michael16G 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Can't beleive this discussion hasn't been resolved yet. This article clearly meets wikipedia standards. Period.
This nonsense about including the Massachusetts legisilature's views on everthing is mindless. This article is about Mitt Romney. Not the mass legislature. The real reason Romney's bills fail is because he is a republican and I have read that the legislature is something like 90% democrats. Do you need somebody to explain this to you? A Republican governor and a democratic legislature with a huge majority dont agree on things.
The format for governship issues should be (and currently is): Romney does or proposes something, description of proposal, few quotes here from those associated with the topic, and then the result of the action. What elese should we do? Provide POV from every single legislator?
Senator X voted against Romney's plan because he fundamentally disagrees with the Governor's proposal Legislator B voted agaist Romney's plan because he hates the Governor Senator Z voted against the plan because he is bought and paid for by unions. Legislator d voted for it because she flipped a coin.
This suggestion is laughable and an example of overzealous wikipedia suggestion. This page is in great shape. Update it as Romney does things.
This not a one sided article. It includes some pretty unfavorable lines for Romney, especially in the abortion section.
I agree that the banner should be removed.-- Waverider5 01:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
looks like we are having an election. I read this page. It seems ok. I say remove the banner.-- Sierraonfire 02:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The several anti-banner editors who say my critique and effort for greater balance in the article is without merit, may be astonished to find that the first outsider peer-review of the article, associated with
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography, says that the article has many good aspects, is a "Class-B" quality article at present, and explains there is reason for concern about point of view on several sections, with need for analysis both pro and con of the Romney efforts and administration over-all. See:
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney.
Basically, for the article to climb the categories of quality, to
there needs to be a continuing conversation about balance within the article, (as well as other aspects of the article) and removing the banner and stifling the conversation about balance will impair progress in improvement of the article's rating. I think everyone would benefit from viewing that reviewer's more general advice on bringing an article to "Featured Article" status: User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA -- Yellowdesk 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You've got to be careful with a potential section like this. "Criticism" contains the very core of POV.-- Redsox777 02:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, General Court is the constitutional term, but who in California or Florida will care? If they want to know the constitutional name, they can click on the link. The Globe even fails to call it the General Court regularly. Yellowdesk 03:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesnt matter if they care, its the correct term. Other states have unique names for its legislative bodies (Virgina house of delagtes for one) and thy are used. Should we change every reference of "the commonwealth of massachusetts" to "the state of massachusetts?" People in California might not know what a commonwealth is either.-- Michael16G 04:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the corner office term. It should be changed since it is not an offical term. But the "General Court' should stay. Saying that we should "write to an audince" demonstrates a lack of understanding of the purpose of wikipedia. We aren't writing an advertisement to be targeted at people, we are writing an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias dont shy away from correct names and facts. They include them.-- Michael16G 13:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Why then does the the leading journal of record in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe typically fail to use the term General Court in its articles about legislative activity? Yellowdesk 14:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Because the Boston Globe is a newspaper. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Do you understand the difference? For your reference, here is an sample of an article on the Massachusetts legislature from Encarta (an encyclopedia):
"The Massachusetts legislature, known as the General Court, consists of a 40-member Senate and a 160-member House of Representatives. All members of the General Court are elected every two years. The General Court meets every year." (source Microsoft Encarta)
If "General Court" is good enough for Encarta, its good enough for Wikipedia.-- Michael16G 14:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The citation for this is 404. Better source needed. Yellowdesk 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Featured Article is an unlikely outcome of this article. Why not withdraw the template and nomination as a Featured Article, and get a review from people who really are dedicated to reviews, Wikipedia:Peer_review before getting this article rejected as a Featured Article? Yellowdesk 02:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the leading editors of the
Mitt Romney page take a look at the
Wikipedia:Citations_quick_reference, and then look at the more detailed
Wikipedia:Citing_sources, which describes the policies on Wikipedia for citing sources. Unfortunately the
Mitt Romney article (as of October 25, ,2006) fails to use a prescribed system, has partial use of two different systems, and complete use of none. For this merely technical reason alone, the article will fail a
Wikipedia:Featured article review.
It has, nine footnotes of the Wikipedia:Footnotes variety, using the <ref> </ref> markup, and about 150 of the so-called Wikipedia:Embedded_Citations, and none of the embedded citations is shown with complete source-article information in a references section at the foot of the page, as the policy indicates they should.
The refences section is intended to give the reader printing out the article a visual indication of the sources, including especially:
An exemplary demonstration of what should be seen on a reference is desribed in
Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Embedded_HTML_links.
Nevertheless, I actually recommend using the
Wikipedia:Footnotes instead of the
Wikipedia:Embedded_Citations, as you won't have to keep proofreading the article carefully to see if any new references have failed to be put in the References section--they are automatically put in via the footnotes system using <ref> </ref> markup.
==== Embedded HTML links ====
Web pages referenced in an article can be linked to directly by enclosing the URL in square brackets. For example, a reference to a newspaper article can be embedded like: [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html], which looks like this: [14]
In the References section, you should also list a full citation:
*Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''The Guardian'', October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005.
which appears as:
- Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005.
Yellowdesk 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The Featured Article review and nomination process not has yet been started, for failure to follow the procedures of making a proper nomination. Steps 2, 3, 4 and 5 are as yet unaccomplished by the nominating editor
Myclob. See this from the
Wikipedia:Featured_article_review page: (
Yellowdesk 20:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC))
FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting—to addressing more involved issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness and POV.
When listing here, a nominator must specify these criteria and may propose remedies. The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Here, reviewers do not declare "keep" or "remove". If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed; if not, the article is placed on the FARC list. A nomination need not be made with the goal of removal. Minor reviews of articles that are generally up to standard, but may require a copy-edit, are welcome.
Older FAs are held to the current standards. Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances).
After nominating, consider notifying the relevant parties. These include the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the edit history page), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the featured article log), and any relevant WikiProjects. Nominators are asked to improve an article that they nominate for review to the best of their ability.
Nominating an article for FAR
1. Place {{FAR}} (upper case) at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit box. Hit "Save page".
2. From there, click on the "add a comment" link.
3. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top of the subpage.
4. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue. Hit "Save page".
5. Copy {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article}}, hit "Edit" for the "Feature Article Reviews" section, and paste it at the top of the list of nominated articles, filling in the exact name of the nominated article. Hit "Save page".
NB If an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1
Since the nomination of several days ago for Wikipedia:Featured_article_review:
I have removed the {{FAR}} template from this talk page, (the template is the start of the Featured Article review process, when properly submitted),
I propose that a simple Wikipedia:Peer_review be conducted to further the review and improvement process for this article meanwhile. If someone disagrees with this assessment, this is a good place to speak up. Yellowdesk 03:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is the link to the Biography peer review process, with explanations of the various levels of acceptability (Stub, Start, B-Class, Good Article, A-Class, Feataured Article.).
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review
Yellowdesk 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Update: A
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review has been submitted as of October 28, 2006.
Yellowdesk 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The current description of the SEC investigation and Inspector General's report in the Big Dig section does not do an adequate job of explaining what is at issue here. I'm glad that a citation was included for the description of the report as "informal," however, the other changes to my most recent posting only obfuscate the issues relating to Gov. Romney rather than clarify it. A reader would not currently know that what is at question are the Romney Administration's claims on bond filings that it conducted safety inspections that were not, in fact, done. These charges are well documented in the press in the citations I included that were later reverted, as well as in the IG's report. Notmyrealname 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Somebody deleted my post - so I am replacing it.-- Michael16G 13:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I googled this story for more articles, but can't find any more info regarding the status of the investigation. Is this there anything more to add on this? From reading the citations, it looks like the SEC just wanted a copy of a handbook (I guess that's why its informal). I really dont think this is a big deal --- yet. If the SEC launches a real investigation and finds wrongdoing, we should seriously consider expanding this section. But for right now I think its ok.-- Michael16G 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
At first I thought this was a big story about faulty tunnel inspections. Then I read the sources and realized the story is about a typo in a financial document. -Yawn- Lets see if anything more becomes of this typo story.-- Waverider5 03:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I am concerned about the potential for abuse in the external links section. Currently there are multiple entries of "XX for Romney" sites in the National and State level sections. If all states start similar groups we will have quite a collection. Can't we just list one single campaign site and leave it at that? Otherwise this will start looking like a campaign page. Notmyrealname 18:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Dont see the probelem with these. They seem to be different sites.-- Waverider5 01:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I too am in favor of Myclob's proposal for a single link for all pro-Romney sites as well because I can see the potential damage to this work of art down the rode. I'm a webpage designer as well and know how much time it takes to organize everything where it can all be destroyed in just little time. I also think it will help organize his wikipedia pages. (john)
Instead of the recently withdrawn "Featured Article" review, a request for a WikiProject_Biography/Peer review has been submitted. The request can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney. One or two or three experienced reviewers on the Wikipedia Biography project may take the time to review the article.
Anyone may respond to the review request, but it is desirable for people who have not participated in editing the article to comment in this instance.
To see comments at the review location, click on --> Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney
Here is the text of the request that was made, giving guidance to reviewers:
Mitt Romney is a biographical article about the current governor of Massachusetts, who is visible as a likely contender as a Republican candidate for President of the U.S. in 2008. The article has yet to be rated for quality. I speculate that more than a hundred editors have touched this page since it started as a three sentence stub on 10 January 2004. It has had about 1,500 edits. Apparently over the summer of 2006, the article was expanded significantly by several editors, and sources with links were attached to most of the statements and claims in the article. There are about 10 footnotes and 150 embedded links to sources.
Key points and desires, for a review by outsiders:
- General comments that assess its current level of quality and advice on how to improve the article
- It is understood that the article presently fails to follow policy by lacking a listing for citations in a References or Notes section at the foot of the article, and that that makes it hard to scan the quality of the sourcing for the article.
- Since admirers tend to expand on articles about leading living politicians, it is desirable to have specific comment on various aspects of the neutrality and balance of the article:
- a. tone and style of the words used to describe activities, speeches, accomplishments and events, in relation to balance and neutrality
- b. quality of the sourcing and citations (no small task), with attention to balance or neutrality of the sources
- c. an assessment of what is selected topically to be in the article, and assessment as to what extent that topicality indicates a point of view
- d. there is little mention or explanation in the article about the environment surrounding the efforts of Romney, and why and how his rhetoric or actions (whether in speech, or in bill-filing, or otherwise) have achieved modest results in comparison to his desires in the state of Massachusetts. Comment on this environmental aspect of a biography is desired, as several editors have said sections read like a press release from a candidate.
A scan of the talk page's table of contents may (or may not) be informative: Talk:Mitt_Romney.
Yellowdesk 03:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
A first review by a member of the Wikipedia Biography project has been received, and may be viewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney. There may (or may not) be one or two more reviews to follow. Yellowdesk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I see from the comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney that a second volunteer reviewer participating in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography project will not be reviewing this article, because of the multiple hostile comments by Michael16G. I find this regrettable, as any thoughtful and careful review of this article is useful to furthering the goal of obtaining a Good Article or Class-A or Featured Article status. This may make future reviews of the article harder to obtain, when it is known that hostile editors are involved with the article. You can be certain that a review for a Featured Article status would be far more particular than the thoughtful suggestions made by the 1st reviewer. Yellowdesk 02:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Since the first reveiw is a little difficult to make out, with the comments of Michael16G scattered throughout, here's the original version of the review. Yellowdesk 04:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the format of the footnotes I am following, as I convert them from embedded web links. Updated from time to time as clarification may require.
Source for further reading:
Wikipedia:Footnotes
--
Yellowdesk 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The aim is to produce for a Newspaper or Journal something like this at the foot of the page in the notes section:
1. ^ Last_name, First_name. "Title of Article", Journal Name, January 1, 2006, retrieved October 31, 2006.
All parenthesis below are just to make clear a character or two or none is required. No actual parenthesis is used.
Here's the format broken up into multiple lines so you can read it.:
end of sentence getting the footnote(period)
(NOspace) <ref> Author_LASTNAME (comma) Author_FIRSTNAME (period) (space) [http://www.WEBADDRESS (space) (double quote) (NOspace) TITLE OF ARTICLE (NOsapce) (double quote)] (space) (two single quotes) (NOspace) NAME OF JOURNAL (NOspace) (two single quotes)(comma) (space) DATE OF PUBLICATION (comma) (space) retrieved DATE (period) </ref>
to do: cross off checked-on links. Yellowdesk
Sources in process below
One of Governor Mitt Romney biggest focus has been on affordable housing, perhaps because his father was secretary of HUD under Nixon. Romney advocated affordable housing as a way to help the economy, (1) (2). Romney has often advocated smart growth, and criticized sprawl (3). Romney advocated increasing the number of houses in the state as a way to fight homelessness (4). He also blamed a housing shortage as a barrier to “business growth and job creation” (4). Romney used federal, state, and private funds to increase the number of houses Massachusetts (6) (7) (11) (12) (13) (15) (16). Governor Romney used his position as governor to ask towns and cities to build more houses (8). He used state funds to support affordable housing (I think they were state funds) (9). It seems that when he ran out of ideas two months into his governorship he convened a task force (10). Then when it seems that he ran out of ideas again, a year and 3 month into his governorship, he convened an advisory panel (17) and focused on Smart Growth, and
2003
2004
2005
What do you guys think?
Here is a place were you can find working links:
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Affordable%20Housing
I know it needs some work, but it is a start...
User:Myclob Oct 31, 7:34AM Chicago Time
I'm not so sure about this section. I am uncomfortable with the use of the press releases. You should find impartial press items to back up any info that you cite. This page shouldnt be a compilation of Romney press releases. Also how do we know that his father was the reason for the housing plans? Statements like "probably because" are unsutable for wikipedia content. I think we should rework this section. Also, what were the results of Romney's housing proposals? Has the state's affordable housing increased under his administration?-- Waverider5 03:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Myclob Nov 1st, 12:36 PM Chicago.
I would cut down on the press release usage. They only prove what Romney proposed, not what actually happened. This section needs to be revamped. If you dont include news articles you open this section up to crticism that it is too biased. This section gets a "needs more work" rating.
No need to cry, its just Wikipedia.-- Redsox777 02:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind press releases; they can't be the only source: more context is ultimately desirable so that the significance of the activity can be understood from other viewpoints than the Governor's office. Sources that evaluate the activity, and also talk generally about housing in Mass. that would give reasons to understand if this is a momentous, just a good idea, or not so significant. Yellowdesk 18:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to use News Sources, but unlike the state of Massachusetts, the charge you to access their old articles. News sources are not un-biased. They are for profit enterprises, that don't often publish important stuff like a 2008 presidential candadates housing policy, unless the candidates got into a fight over the issue and started calling names. Now that sells. So I went to google news, and clicked on the news archive search option, and found this article, but the Boston Globe required $2.95 to read the rest of the articel:
LEGISLATORS APPLAUD ROMNEY'S HOUSING PLAN Published on January 27, 2004 Author(s): Matthew Rodriguez, Globe Correspondent
Democratic legislators responded favorably yesterday to Governor Mitt Romney's announcement of a $100 million housing program, which aims to create about 5,000 mixed-income units over the next three years.
Called the Priority Development Fund, the program will use reserve funds from quasi-public MassHousing to fund mixed-income developments. The program will put $75 million toward mixed-income developments that are at least 20 percent low- to moderate-income, $22 million toward
Another concern, and one that makes it appear POV to me, is that it is essentially a laundry list of actions taken by Romney on housing. Most of what's here seem pretty standard fare for any governor. Again, what's really needed is some sense of whether Romney's efforts on housing have had any significant impact. I believe MA has pretty much the same abysmal rate of unnaffordability that it did when Romney was elected. The key here would be to find some studies that show what has happened, and how it compares to national trends. Notmyrealname 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Should we have a "criticism" section similar to the Obama page? User:Myclob
- Yes, this article is so biased as it is.
The problem with this page as it stands now is that it reads like a piece of campaign literature. Wiki, as with all other encyclopedias, is supposed to be impartial. There's a lot of spin about what his office would like to call his achievements, accompanied by quite a few inappropriately glossy "official" photographs, and little about controversies, such as his frequent trips out of state to bash Massachusetts at conservative conventions, which were well-covered by both in-state media (the Globe AND the Herald) as well as out of state media such as the Washington Post. For this article to succeed as properly impartial, it needs some balance. Nearly every other '08 presidential candidate from either party (McCain, Guiliani, Brownback, Hagel, Obama, Vilsack, etc.) has a criticism/controversy section in their Wiki article. Some, such as Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, even have their own separate pages of "controversy". Mitt's is completely absent, and sorely needed. All public officials make mistakes and have controversies. Romney's need to be covered in a separate section, just like everyone else's have been. User: huzzah91
I humbly submit that the topic order in this entry have become somewhat random, especially the division between the Governorship section and the "other issues" (a division that seems rather arbitrary and may be a candidate for deletion or rephrasing).
Here are the topics as they currently exist: 1-Health Care 2-Education Initiatives 3-Budget Balancing 4-Same-Sex Marriage 5-Death Penalty 6-Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill 7-Abortion 8-Stem Cell Research 9-In-State Tuition Bill 10-Environment 11-The "Big Dig" 12-Gun Control 13-Crime 14-Minimum Wage 15-William Bulger 16-May 2006 Flooding 17-Khatami Controversy 18-Tar Baby 19-“Affordable Housing:” 20-Taxes
It strikes me that these seem to fall under certain categories. The most important are the things that Romney has actually done, or bills that have been passed. The next would be issues that he has had a hand in or reacted to, but not a central role, and bills that he has proposed but that did not pass. Third would be the minor issues and topics that Romney was somehow linked to (these often seemed important at the moment, but with the passage of time have proven to be tangential), and positions that Romney has taken on issues that matter more to his future Presidential run than his governorship. I think a few of the items on this list could be up for deletion or at least chopping down to a sentence or two. A few of the topic descriptions themselves are more editorial than necessary.
I'll let others offer their thoughts before I make my suggestions. Notmyrealname 20:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The order seems good as is. I wouldnt delete sentances just for the sake of a reorder.-- Waverider5 01:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Sections should not contain information based soley on Romney Press releases. Press Releases generally show only 2 things 1.) Romney quotes and 2.) Romney proposals. Oustide sources such as articles need to be used to affirm the veracity of facts, and the actual fate of Romney proposals.
Also, every single Romney website does not need to be linked to the page. Only major ones should be linked. If they are all posted, it will clutter the page.-- Michael16G 13:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
As Governor Romney is at least contemplating a presidentital race, his use of of a podium based on the presidential podium, and the new seal which heretofore never existed, modeled on the Seal of the President of the United States clearly was done for future political use to help make the governor appear presidential. It's brilliant! The Zieber book documents this, it is cited. Don't get me wrong, I love stuff like this. This is a man who very carefuly manages his image. It makes Governor Romney look like a million,bucks behind it! 03:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link showing an architectural axonometric diagram of the presidential podium. Interesting similarities with the podium Governor Romney had made for himself. Follow this link, take a look, what do you think?: http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/219509
03:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it says the seal was modeled on the Seal of the President of the United States, as it was produced in Romney's administration it seems no leap that the governor's staff did not "sneak" it onto the podium without his consent. Zieber suggests that the action was done to appear more presidential, and cited Gov. Reagan creating a seal for the governor of California (still in use). Thanks for making the pictures larger. 01:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Will, it's fine with me to say the podium is modeled on the one at the White House or of the president's. Mention of the new seal should acknowledge it was produced durng Governor Romney's tenure, modeled on the presidentital seal, and one of the two statements: eitther that when he took office, the governor traditionally used the state seal; or that previous to his administrtion the office of the governor did not have a seal. There is no denying Governor Romney has a very carefully managed image and it is impressive, up there with presidents Reagan and Clinton. Of course running against Shannon O'Brien in '04, who had less than zero awareness of image making, there was no contest on that level. 16:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is why the addition to the caption is invalid.
1. All the information added to the caption is pure speculation.
2. While the podium may look like the White House podium, we have no idea of knowing if it was modeled after it.
3. Romney's administration DID NOT design the podium. A simple google image search shows that this is not the case.
Look. Jane Swift, Romney's predecessor used the same podium here: http://www.mass.gov/guard/E&RC/Operations%20Files/operations%20pic%2021.jpg
and here: http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/winter_2004/images/ft_sheriff2.jpg
and here: http://www.aallnet.org/chapter/llne/LLNENews/v22n3/MVC-010F.JPG.jpg
ALSO Swift's predecessor Paul Cellucci used the podium too: http://www.massbike.org/bikeways/neponset/cell0006a.jpg
Its clear that it is a standard podium used by Masachusetts Governors before Bush and Romney were both in office.
5.It is clear that the seal Romney uses in the picture is NOT designed after the White House seal. The White House seal has an eagle with arrows (see above). Romney is in fact using the Massachusetts coat of arms, just like his predecessors (note the pictures).
6. "Suggestions" by people (Zieber) are not appropriate information for Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias report facts, not speculation or points of view. -- Michael16G 02:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I would organize things by chronological order...
Here is a list of actions, and statements, in order, if you want to use as a reference:
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/veterans
myclob 17:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Atlanta44 deleted my posting in the environment section. Please explain why or I will put it back in. It referred to a current ranking of the MA's environmental spending record in a non-partisan magazine. Seems like it would be very relevant for those seeking to evaluate Romney's record in this area. Thanks! -- Notmyrealname 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
What was deleted? Please post here for people to see.-- Michael16G 02:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I really think this additon is out of place and pretty unimportant. The environemnt section is about enviornmental policy (i.e. the Greeenhouse Gas Pact, off shore drilling, wind farms, etc.). The source shows that the funding pretains primarily to recreational facilites (i.e. pools, playgrounds, paths, and buildings). This has more to do with Romney's budgetary priorities than it does his enviornmental record.-- Sierraonfire 19:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the section is fine, although I do agree that ANWR is out of place. I would leave it where it is, and then move it to the presidential section if he decides to run. This would fall under a presidential platform section. I would keep cape wind in this category as Romney has much to do with it. Approvals muct be run through the state environemtal secretary (who reports to Romney) and proposed legislation would give him and future governors the chance to veto it or lobby the coast guard to veto it.-- 65.96.5.43 22:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The 1994 election section needs some revision. It currently reads "The general election between Romney and Senator Ted Kennedy was extremely competitive leading up to election day. The debates between Romney and Kennedy were lively, and the polls showed Romney only slightly behind Kennedy." But then it says that one poll put Romney ahead. Finally, Romney loses by 17 points (what George Will calls a "drubbing"). So, as it reads now, Romney was only slightly behind (and was ahead) until election day, but then lost by 17 points (which no politician would claim is close). This needs to be revised to say that two months before the election one poll put Romney within the polls margin of error, but then he got clobbered, but not by as much as everyone else who ran against Kennedy. Plus, what is the basis for saying the debates were "lively"?-- Notmyrealname 06:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Governor Romney's religous beliefs and participation in his faith is a part of his story, and who he is, it quite appropritely informs his political actions (opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage). In the last three days, three different users have edited the article to make mention of some of this, only to have it deleted by the users RedSox777 and WaveRider, and listed as absurd, or citing that other potential presidential candidates do not have their religion described in their articles. First, there is mention of religion in several politicians' articles; second, few potential candidates have been as religously active as Gov. Romney, serving s two forms of priests, then as bishop, and having participated on a church board and personally financing the building of a temple in Belmont, Massachusetts. A sub-section on religion in the biography section, or its own section? How should we appropriately list these pertinenet part of this potential presidential candidate's life? This is all cited information, it is not conjecture. Continued diligent deletion of this information is not a resolution, and pushes the article towards fluffiness inviting third-party review. Constant removal of references to his participation in his faith suggests bias. 13:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
A religon secion is completely unprecedented. Why would we make a religon section for one politican and not the other thousands on wikipedia? He is the Governor of Massachusetts, not the pope. Many of the claims in this section are not backed up with sources. Claims about joining preisthoods and financing churhes are not sourced, therefore they are invalid until proven. My guess is that Romney did contribute to his church, but so does virtually every other politican (and it isnt mentioned in their profiles).
What can be sourced is that Romney was a lay minister (bishop) who voulenteer his time with his church during his years in buisness. This is worth mentioning, perhaps in the buisness section of his life.
The only suggested "bias" present is from those who feel that Romney needs to be idefined by his religon. This is not the case with any other politican. Nobody else has a religon section, not even ordained ministers who have served in office (see Mike Huckabee). This section will have to be discussed on the talk page. Please do not repost until a concencus amoungst the editors has been reached.-- 24.218.109.71 17:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Romney is not embarassed by his faith, he is proud of it, and as he cites his religous beliefs in policy making it is appropriate here. To suggest being a mormon bishop is somehow akin to being a lay minister or deacon is incorrect. Romney was a bisop (see wiki article) and a priest (LDS term) in two of the priesthoods of the Church of Latter-day Saints. This isn't a Rotary Club office but a religous one, and one few LDS men achieve. The wiki bios of several potential U.S. presidential candidates do mention religion, and many more members of congress and state governors.
Romney's faith is noteworthy, but does not require its own section at this point. Why would Romney require a religon section if nobody else has one? His faith is already mentioned on the page and in the info box. It isn't hidden, its in the inital bio section and his missonary work is mentioned.
His work as a mormon "bishop" (I am unfamiliar with mormon terms) is widely characterized as "lay" ministry work
Here: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/08/28/romneys_listed_as_big_givers_to_charity/
and Here: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8502
and Here: http://www.masslive.com/springfield/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1151481927311090.xml&coll=1
He volunteerd his time as a lay offical during hs buisness career. I cannot find anything about Romney being a "preist." Unless we can source it, we cannot specualte.
The bottom line is that Romney's faith should recieve the same ammount of focus as oher politicans and candidates. It looks like the page is currently in line with that standard-- Michael16G 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The potential for prejudice based on his relatively unknown religion seems to be a good reason for a bit more discussion. While the man is welathier than most, gifts of several millions of dollars to a church, temple, or mosque, by a potential candidate for U.S. president warrants some scrutiny. In one sense an early openess (v. secretness) can serve to demystify, even innoculate Mitt against future prejudice. 68.163.142.93 13:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that the current mention of Romney's religon is sufficent for this page. A Religon section is overkill. More should be added in a presidential section if the issue of his religon becomes a defining factor. As Notmyrealname points out, authors will have to be respectful if this type of section is needed in the future. Seperatly, I am not sure why Romney needs to be "scrutinized" for his charatable givings to his church or other organizations. I am also puzzeled as to why Romney needs to be "innoculated" from preceptions of his faith and why some think that wikipedia is a forum for this procedure.-- Sierraonfire 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Whereas I doubt that Mr. Romney would be named f/ a mitten, nor glove,... Someone, please say the definitions f/ "Mitt",... & "Wilcken".
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 06:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what the question is here, or where "Wilcken" comes from (Willard?). As for the name "Mitt" I beleive it is part of his given name. I guess your question should be directed at Mr. Romney's parents.-- Sierraonfire 00:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This [19] appears to be a partial revert of my edit [20]. Some questions I have:
This article is heavily biased in favor of Mr.Romney. It is transparent that this was submitted by the Romney camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.81.24 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 26 September 2006 UTC