This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I believe Mormon (no quotes) is best. It is used here as a categorization (e.g., "Mitt is a Mormon"), since members of the LDS Church are commonly referred to as Mormons. It is not used here as a nickname for the LDS Church. WP:Mormon explains that usage of Mormon (no quotes) is appropriate "in reference to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". — Eustress talk 03:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The categorization is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, members of the Church are often known as "Mormons," but that is the nickname that a lot of people call them by. The Church says that the official term for these members is "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Of course some people think that's rather long to say, so the church acknowledges that people will often call the members just "Mormons." Nevertheless, that remains as only a nickname for the church and part of the official name of one of the books of scripture, The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, because of the prophet named Mormon who abridged the original writings. The only other official names with "Mormon" in them are the book Mormon Doctrine and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. As for members themselves, reference to them as "Mormons" remains only a nickname.
So you say that the official info box text is to leave it without nickname quotes. So what? Why shouldn't we ammend that official policy so that it makes room for that type of labeling? And so what if there is "no need" (<--- those are the "you're saying it, not me; and not that I believe you" quotes right there) to change it? That doesn't mean there would be anything "wrong" (as you'd probably say) with adding them, does it? They are not errant. They are not like adding an apostrophe to a word where none belongs, in an attempt to form a plural! They are good to show outsiders the difference between the official church name and the nickname. What's so "sinister" about that? I say we change WP:Mormon's rule about it. Why not? Well, of course that would require a concensus, but why would people have to be so opposed to it?
What about the intro. of Donny Osmond? That uses quotation marks to set apart his nickname of "Donny" from his real name, Donald Clark Osmond, in the form of "Donald Clark 'Donny' Osmond." So there. Why can't the LDS church in info boxes be that same basic way (including be adjusted as WP:Mormon policy)?
MaxxFordham ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC).
Is a template now placed at the very bottom of the article whose only value appears to show that Romney and Jon Huntsman; Sr. are fourth cousins. The problem is that the "selection" elides on the order of 5,000 to 10,000 or more fourth cousins in order to show this OR. The "selection" is made solely for the single purpose of showing a distant relationship between two people, and is a non-notable "family tree" template at best. The fact that it is unsourced or poorly sourced is lagniappe. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
But all of this as it may be, Collect, you appear to have won the argument that Huntsman's relationship to the romney's is peripheral at best. Still, the fact that he is a member of the LDS so-called "royal" Pratt clan is well attested to in the sources and that lineage is appropriate for inclusion in WP about the extended Pratt family.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)New York Times: "...Gielgud rarely saw his famous second cousin, who had left England in 1904, the year of his birth. But the name already had an aura for him. The Terry family were famous for certain characteristics, of which the `Terry charm' was perhaps the most obvious." LINK
NYT May 23, 2000 obit: "Many contemporary critics considered [Gielgud] to be the greatest classical actor of their time." LINK
[ a follow-up to the archived Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 10#military service, moved here from User talk:Wasted Time R ]
Not only can I read, I also have manners, and, as I wrote previously, I would like to see more information about his draft deferment. Waving the hankerchief of student and missionary work at the issue is not sufficiently informative. Pretend Romney is someone you do not like, and imagine researching his deferments from that point of view.
I'd like some insight that connects his early strategy of avoiding military service, with his later personal development that is revealed in both his private (Bain) and public service employment and aspirations. (I don't mind if he's an pacifist, for instance, I'd just like to no why he thought going on his Mormon mission was more important than serving in the military.
Very nice noun-verb agreement, btw. Bravo ! Hlwelborn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlwelborn ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I cannot help but notice that this article seems to have an air of slant in favor of Romney without introducing many areas of controversy. Is anyone else seeing this? Checking the archives, it seems to have been brought up multiple times before but never really corrected. Does anyone agree with this sentiment? If so, this article needs more protection. -- Instantkarma09 ( talk) 02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The assets that Romney's campaign began with included his résumé of success in the business world and his rescuing of the Salt Lake Olympics,[156][165] which matched the commonly held notion that American industry had star players who could straighten out what was wrong in the nation's capital.[166] Romney also had solid political experience as governor together with a political pedigree courtesy of his father, a strong work ethic and energy level, and a large, wholesome-looking family that seemed so perfect as to be off-putting to some voters.[156][165][167] Ann Romney, who had become an outspoken advocate for those with multiple sclerosis,[168] was in remission and would be an active participant in his campaign,[169] helping to soften his political personality.[167] Moreover, with his square jaw, handsome face, and ample hair graying at the temples, Mitt Romney matched one of the common images of what a president should look like.[56][170][171][172] Romney's liabilities included having run for senator and served as governor in one of the nation's most liberal states, having taken some positions there that were opposed by the party's conservative base, and subsequently shifting those positions.[156][165][169] His religion was also viewed with suspicion and skepticism by some in the Evangelical portion of the party.
A while ago we updated the infobox image to a more recent photo (Image A), despite the darkness around Romney's eyes. I've just come across another recent image (Image B) where this is not the issue, although he has a different expression. Thoughts? — Eustress talk 20:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
How about this quote: "Ann Romney's work as a homemaker would enable her husband to pursue his career". This is not very NPVO; it states as fact Mitt's position that a woman's place is in the home. I mean, if she had a job OUTSIDE the home would Mitt NOT have been able to pursue his career? This article appears more like it came from Mitt's campaign website than from a neutral encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.219.69 ( talk) 18:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Why is there a photo of the Cranbrook School on Romney's page? The article is not about Cranbrook. His attendance there amounts to little more than a footnote in the scope of the whole article. It should be removed. The photo would be fine on the Cranbrook School WP page, not on Romney's page. Dezastru ( talk) 23:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this content appropriate for the lead?
"During the course of his political career, his positions or rhetorical emphasis have shifted more towards American conservatism in several areas, with charges of "flip-flopping" and ideological inauthenticity from political opponents often the result." It seems rather unfair to include such inflammatory rhetoric without any sort of challenge, and the sentences seem out of place anyways. Romney's political positions are located at Political positions of Mitt Romney. BLP guidelines. It appears the content is disproportionately represented as long as it remains in the lead. Rarely are biographies subject to criticism from their opponents in the lead. Anything specifically about Romney's historic political stance should be moved to the appropriate section (sourced of course). Thoughts? Wikifan Be nice 05:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittens_Romney .... really?!?!-- Brian Earl Haines ( talk) 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
His campaign staffer's comment about the Etch-A-Sketch looks like it might do severe/permanent damage to Romney's campaign and his career/public image in general. Should this be included in the article or is it simply too soon? 67.88.170.110 ( talk) 17:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is now on the Wikipedia article about the 2012 campaign. It was a plus for Mitt Romney, since he explained the words of his advisor. Gingrich and Santorum looked unpresidential waving the toy around (I've added notes to the campaign page and the Etch A Sketch page, now famous); and Barack Obama looked unpresidential also, referring to the flap. Ron Paul created a short ad saying Gingrich and Santorum were being petty when we have "15TRILLION in Debt, 12million unemployed, and USA at war." The only person who benefited was candidate Romney who explained it well and appeared to be the only presidential-looking adult in the room. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I can think of no modern campaign where no one has not been accused of changing positions during a campaign - even of having two simultaneously different positions in different parts of the country. All parties. All candidates. Sans exception as far as I can tell since 1964 when Goldwater in the US made the mistake of being consistent. Also true in Europe (vide current elections in France etc.). Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
References
bizweek
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Somebody quantified them (per genealogical researcher Wm. Reitwiesner) as
40.6% England [mostly N.W. Engl/part W. Midlands]
18.8% Scotland
28.1% Colonial-Yankee
12.5% North-German
approx. 2% French-Huguenot.
Fwiw.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Tho
this commenter believes the Wilcken line Danish (which family name constituted a partial influence on the selection of Mitt's actual first name of Willard?). (Btw, Anna Wilcken's father, Charles Henry Wilcken (aka Carl Heinrich W.)
had desertedbeen unaccountably AWOL from the U.S. Army that had been moving westward overland on a mission to, eventually, establish
Fort Douglas in Salt Lake City (aka the City of the Great Salt Lake) some time before he decided to marry Anna W.'s mother. Eventually he got paperwork declaring he had not deserted but had been captured by
Nauvoo Legion guerrillas (aka the Mormons); see "
Utah War.")--
Hodgdon's secret garden (
talk) 21:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Absent a GENUINE RELIABLE SOURCE, this is all counting angels on needles. Collect ( talk) 22:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
How come there isn't one? Sure it'd be controversial, but it's an area that needs analysing regarding the guy (and the subject of BBC article today - which covers his cousin's apostasy as well). I was quite surprised this doesn't cover it in a dedicated section. Oh, and the article mentions the underwear thing ;) Malick78 ( talk) 16:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
In short: where a BLP lists the religious affiliation of a person, and existing articles on Wikipedia give the tenets and beliefs of that sect in substantial detail, it is silly to add the tenets and beliefs to the BLP as well. We should not add "believes in transubstantiation" to the BLP of every Roman Catholic, nor "believes in a literal Adam and Eve" to everyone who is Orthodox Jewish, nor "believes Muhammed flew on a horse" to every BLP of a Muslim, and this case is no different. It is not encyclopedic, in short, to ascribe every tenet of a sect or group to which one belongs in a BLP on that person. Nor should any labels concerning those beliefs thus be attached to the individual either. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
As far as the importance in this 2012 election cycle, much was already covered in the 2008 election cycle and people are not that interested now. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The article deals with Romney's religious activities in a comprehensive manner, in the appropriate places in the biographical narrative. The material isn't hard for the reader to find, by looking at the Table of Contents and/or doing browser searches for "Mormon" or "LDS". And agree with Eustress and Collect that this article is not the place to delve into theological details of the religion. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
There is mention at the end of the article to Romney receiving an award from the Becket Fund. His charitable trust donated $25,000 to that organization in 2010. The Becket Fund is one of the parties currently advancing lawsuits against the HHS mandates (they also were the counsel for the defense in the Hosana-Tabor case, which Romney has attacked the Obama Administration for their position in it) and while they have defended the freedom of everyone from Sikhs to Muslims, they are often at odds with the ACLU. Do people think coverage of the Romney-Becket Fund connection is worth while. By Romney Charitable Trut standards $25,000 is a drop in the bucket, but it is a noticable fund and far more than I have donated to the Becket Fund, since my donations probably total more like $25. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 07:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
"Human Rights Campaign revealed that Governor Romney, an outspoken opponent of same-sex unions, donated a generous $10,000 to NOM back in 2008. That puts Romney’s magnamimous gesture — under the name of his “Free and Strong America” PAC — right around the same time the organization was strategizing on how to incite racial division in its touching efforts to preserve American values. "
The article is in pretty good shape IMO (despite the fact that Juli Weiner seems to believe it's " decidedly judgemental," heh heh! ) Since tonight all but wraps the party nomination, should we now nominate this blp for FA status?-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 03:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"Romney spent over $7 million of his own money, and Kennedy spent more than $10 million from his campaign fund"
The statement is ambiguous and confusing.
Was the entire Romney campaign financing limited exclusively to Romney money?
Or were total Romney expenditures superior to $7 million, therefore leading to a false comparison between Kennedy and Romney campaign spending?
Or were total personal Romney contributions to the campaign less than $7 million?
The footnote links for this sentence do not appear to function at this time.
82.224.103.123 ( talk) 14:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for these corrections.
The second link still does not work for me.
In the case of the book cited, is it possible to actually quote the book, at least in the footnote? Or is this not accepted practice?
82.224.103.123 ( talk) 11:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It fails to mention anything after mid-February. Ironically enough, everything after then has been all for Romney and now people are seeing him as the presumptive nominee. He his wayyy too far ahead in the delegate count for the final line "Romney has maintained that delegate margin through subsequent contests" to do it justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees317 ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
"In July 1966, Romney left for 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary, a traditional duty that his father and other relatives had done.[16][30][31] "
Given that there is controversy surrounding the draft, great care should be taken in the neutrality of this passage.
This passage seems to imply that other Romney relatives also served 30 months as a missionary in France, or at least implies that a similar length of service is "a traditional duty", which it is not.
Is 30 months indeed a traditional period of service? Did other Romney relatives also serve 30 months?
Perhaps rephrasing is enough to remove the ambiguity. Or perhaps more information would be useful?
82.224.103.123 ( talk) 12:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, "a traditional duty that his father and other relatives had done" is a clear attempt to diffuse accusations that Romney was avoiding inscription. Otherwise, there is no need for the information in this article. It should AT LEAST be stated in a neutral and factual manner.
82.224.103.123 ( talk) 12:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The question is not whether you or I believe Romney was evading the draft by seeking repeated deferments of various natures. The question is about the neutrality of the passage in this encyclopedia. I do not believe it is neutral as it stands.
78.250.154.181 ( talk) 17:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia page on Mormon Missionaries, defining it as a 'duty" would seem to be exaggerated, it is apparently optional, and the usual length is 2 years. I would consider simply removing the phrase, "a traditional duty that his father and other relatives had done", which seems to be politically motivated. If the passage is going to spend time pointing out what was "normal" about his missionary period, then it should also point out what was exceptional.
Rephrasing might also make the passage more neutral.
78.250.154.181 ( talk) 18:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the change. I believe it is an improvement. This is not the place to discuss the political implications of various people avoiding serving their country in time of war, unless that has an effect on the article.
82.224.103.123 ( talk) 13:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
pertaining to the statement, "During 2011, The New York Times described Romney's persona as facts-driven, cautious, formal, socially stiff, and 'spare with his emotions,'" in the M.R. "Public image" daughter article is here.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 19:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
One of Mitt Romney's defining characteristics as a politician is how he constantly changes his views. Thus, unlike other politicians, a section on his flip-flops is in order. When I tried to post the following section, however, someone immediately deleted it (probably a hardcore Romney supporter or a member of his campaign staff). What do you guys think?
Throughout his political career, Mitt Romney has been notorious for saying one thing, then saying another later on.
Flip | Flop |
---|---|
"Illegal immigrants should have a chance to obtain citizenship.” | "[There should be] no special pathway to citizenship." |
"I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” | "Ronald Reagan is one of my heroes." |
"I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself.” | "I do not personally own a gun." |
"I think the global warming debate is now pretty much over.” | "With regards to global warming, that’s something, which, you’re right, the scientists haven’t entirely resolved." |
Romney opposed a ban on same-sex marriage. | Romney joined petition backers of the Protection of Marriage Amendment. |
Romney endorsed embryonic stem cell research. | Romney vowed to press for legislation to criminalize embryonic stem cell research. |
Romney signed a bill Wednesday requiring all people of Massachusetts to buy health insurance. | Romney is now criticizing his health care plan. |
“I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose." | "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment." |
Athleek123 ( talk) 05:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
i'd expect this trash on MSNBC or FOX not on wikipedia. quotes shouldn't be included period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.67.101 ( talk) 20:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The picture of his father and Nixon is much less relevant than a picture of both parents (see the George Romney article). Moreover, picking out an image of one of America's worst and most despised presidents seems absurd for this article, especially given that Mitt Romney is not even in the picture. Is it just happenstance that this picture was selected instead of one showing his father marching for civil rights or the like? 198.228.194.180 ( talk) 23:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
99.181.137.3 ( talk) 03:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Please add the below entry to the category listed as Political Positions and Public Perceptions. It can easily go under the second or paragraph which describes his stance on civil rights for all, or the fifth paragraph which describes how his attitudes have contributed to the perception of his inauthenticity."
Mitt Romney has consistently argued against immigration reform and for the swift deportation of all undocumented immigrants in the United States. He recently criticized the suggestion by another conservative candidate, Newt Gingrich, to legalize those immigrants who have lived here for decades who "go to church and pay their taxes" as "Amnesty".
"This information can be found via a simple google search but I've included a link to a reliable source below. This information is relevant to the American people looking for all information about a presidential candidate. We need to know their character, their family histories, and their historical decision making on the issues that could affect our lives." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/mitt-romney-mexican_n_1192694.html
Thank you.
Jpb121 ( talk) 05:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. --
Tyrannus Mundi (
talk) 13:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)" Bill Maher responds to S.E. Cupp who claims Mitt Romney gives a lot of his money to charity every year: 'I got to call bullshit on that one. All his charitable donations are to Mormons. He gives to his cult. - They're not poor people. Name one poor Mormon."--- RCP vid
Maher sort of has a point. The LDS do a lot of charitable work (and some of Romneys' donations to the LDS are not specifically "tithing" but are in other categories); in any case, the lion's share of tithing money per se goes to building temples and the like.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 01:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Surely the fact he posthumously his militant atheist father in law should be mentioned somewhere http://gawker.com/5879888/, I'd add it myself but I don't think I could add it in a non-POV way as IMO it is a petty despicable and disrespectful thing to do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.87.193 ( talk) 16:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
[hattip: Romney's highschoolmate Mike Kinsley] (or, perhaps, " Public image of----")?
In the private sector if you don’t change your view when the facts change, well, you’ll get fired for being stubborn and stupid.--- Mitt Romney
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 01:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
When there is a family article with many notable individuals in it (eg the Kennedys), the ancestry of any particular member (eg Jack) may well best belong in that family member's indiv. bio (see eg Spencer family, Diana, Princess of Wales#Ancestry; Kennedy family and John F. Kennedy#Ancestors;...but, then, there's also eg Family of Barack Obama#Ancestries and Barack Obama).
Ancestors of Mitt Romney/Archive 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 05:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Roman word but which one is more adequate usurpator or uzurper ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 04:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
"Romney...playfully teased with...Wiiillard, Wiiillard.... Bailey, a scholarship student and head prefect of the school...described Romney...as an awkward adolescent with a penchant for practical jokes. The children of other auto executives would taunt Romney for the Ramblers he and his father drove. 'That’s not a car, that’s a bicycle with a dishwasher for an engine'...."
WaPo lol. Love it.also
-Glee Club
-started the Blue Key Club, ...students who “know the campus and Cranbrook traditions well”...as ambassador to parents and prospective students
-homecoming weekend,...a “brilliantly hilarious monologue”
-co-chairman of the Speculators Club
-leading role in the American Field Service, which helped bring foreign students to the campus
-leadership role on a student cabinet organization and during his senior year took a bus with some Kingswood girls to volunteer at the nearby state mental hospital
-school paper...special correspondent at the funeral of President John F. Kennedy.
Mitt Romney Comments on Kennedy Funeral...Dec. 17, 1963,...the Crane. “Note: Personal comments and observations made by Mitt Romney in Washington, Nov. 25, 1963.”
“The old Washington theory of relativity, briefly: one is important only until a bigger brass appears, was blatently [sic] obvious for whenever before have we had the top potentates of the world here to outrank our dignitaries? We all recall the day when we saw a senator of the like in some big, black limosine [sic] drive through our town. Most likely our mouths were hanging wide open as our Mommies and Daddies told us the man out there was a very important person who worked in Washington.”[ ... ... ]
-cross-country runner
-Pep Club
-school’s hockey team...manager--
Hodgdon's secret garden (
talk) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
We agree that the claim of the new source that states Romney was a Democrat is factually correct, but we disagree whether it is too trivial or not to change the content of the current article. In particular, we disagree on what to do, whether to leave unchanged or not, with this article statement: "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, [Romney] was registered as an Independent." 13:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I was made aware of a rumor that Romney, aside from the shifts in political positions over time, had once been a member of the Democratic party through an old law that registered independent affiliated voters as partisan depending on the primary a person chose to vote in. I looked in the wiki article and the section where I was expecting clarification of this rumor instead seem to gloss over this seemingly unimportant matter.
According to Buzzfeed.com, Romney's participation in voting for Paul Tsongas had triggered and automatic enrollment into the Democratic Party. It took his direct action to revert back to independent status. Whether it is in anyone's estimation that switching parties on a technicality is not on the level of running for office under the party affiliation is not relevant; it is an interesting bit of knowledge that would satisfy wikipedia's mission as being a repository of knowledge. The fact that at least in my example I had came to wikipedia for an answer is testament to the factoid's right of inclusion in the article. The only matter that deserve's debate is Buzzfeed's reputation as a reliable secondary source. This is the reason I bring this matter to the Romney discussion page as I am not familiar with the source, but the information the article conveys seems legitimate. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 05:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Compare these two statements:
If we consider the assertion as true that Romney was technically registered as a Democrat (no matter how briefly) because of the statutes of the State of Massachusetts in 1992, statement (1) is false but statement (2) as constructed is true. If this is so, then either we must substitute statement (2) for statement (1) or we edit statement (1) to agree with the seemingly undisputed statement of fact that I introduced. It is simply unproductive to maintain that the article should stay the same in light of the new information presented. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 02:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is my proposed change taking Dezastru's suggestion into consideration:
In a traditional encyclopedia or political history compendium, an asterisk and a footnote would be put next to statements that could be challenged for accuracy. Of course, wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia but the same standards for prose used to convey information on the topic should be respected. As suggested earlier, I would prefer "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he had been registered as an Independent except for a brief statutory affiliation switch in the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, when he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas" or "Romney was a registered Independent from 1976 until he voted in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary for the former senator from the state Paul Tsongas when he momentarily became de jure a Democrat. By the 1994 U.S. Senate race, Romney aligned himself with Republican Massachusetts Governor..." as the change does not mislead the reader nor is weighted to give a false impression of an ideological change but reflects statements of fact. In the alternative, to mimic the usage of a clarifying footnote, I would proprose that we add the Buzzfeed source as a citation to the statement "In the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas." If no change is made, I would reaffirm that the article commits the error by omission. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 22:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It is good as written. The common meanings of "registered" and "member" certainly do not include choosing to vote in one democratic primary. And second, there is no one "official". North8000 ( talk) 11:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to thank everyone for the input. For a while I thought I was at an impasse with Wasted Time R because the key point of disagreement seems to be one interpretation, not unlike the ongoing Constitutional debate. Do we loosely or strictly interpret? I do acknowledge that many phrases in our American lexicon lend themselves to common interpretation and in the case of an article written about an American politician such consideration should be given due weight. But what I hope everyone sees here is that the editing process is not so black and white and that due consideration should be given for valid arguments. Sgt. R.K. Blue's suggestion of adding [Massachusetts' 1992 open presidential primary] is an example of what seems like a black and white edit that many editors would accept as valid. But as Wasted Time R correctly points out, the understanding of terms such as open primary as commonly understood is not quite applicable due to the circumstances of the time and place in the source cited. Likewise, I would humbly impress upon everyone that though being registered a Democrat and being a member of the Democratic Party are different animals, we should not be afraid of including these terms when they are properly expressed. Also, I would like to suggest that as editors we may fall to the bias of how we perceive a thing to be because of our unique experience; in this case, those that have voted under particular state jurisdictions will perceive party affiliation as a product their circumstance and apply that understanding to general process of party affiliation where no such general consensus exist (aside from perhaps donating money) because each State GOP/Democrat party sets up their own rules and often in partnership with local and state jurisdictions.
Therefore, to move forward to a consensus, I implore everyone to look at the following options and add either yes or no response depending on the merits; ideally, the option with all yes responses will constitute consensus. i know it doesn't always work that way.
Option 1) Keep as is. No changes.
Option 2) Keep text as is but add the Buzzfeed source as reference to end of the second sentence. (This allows the reader who wants to know the unabridged version to find it without adding contested verbiage).
Option 3) Add a clarifying phrase to original text: "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he had been registered as an Independent except for a brief statutory affiliation switch in the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, when he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas."
Option 4) Reword text (for better prose) to read: "Romney was a registered Independent from 1976 until he voted in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary for the former senator from the state Paul Tsongas when he momentarily became de jure a registered Democrat. By the 1994 U.S. Senate race, Romney aligned himself with Republican Massachusetts Governor..." (This wording implies that Romney was registered as an independent from 1976 to 1994, except for a momentary switch.)
Option 5)??? K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that one's party affiliation is, by definition, whatever that person says it is. End of story. North8000 ( talk) 11:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is way overblown. If Mr. Romney wants to claim that he cast an actual valid vote for Paul Tsongas, then yes, fine, he's totally free to claim that.
However, by the same token, he must necessarily (according to the Supreme Court's reading of the Constitution of the United States of America) have been a member of the Democratic party at the moment when he cast that vote.
He can't have it both ways. Seriously, I'm not sure what we're arguing about here? This isn't rocket science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.193.3 ( talk) 22:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I've backed out this edit because it was overly detailed for the lead section (April is good enough) and especially for the first paragraph (just say who he is), used a cite (this article follows the style where the lead section has no cites, but everything introduced is repeated and cited in the article body), and because it clashed with the April 24 date given in the article body. The standard meaning of "presumptive nominee" is the leader has gained enough delegates to win the nomination, which won't happen for Romney until late this month or early next. However after the April 24 sweep, the RNC Chair proclaimed him the presumptive nominee, which is good enough for our purposes and what the article body states and the end of the lead section echoes. This article is going up for FAC, and I want to mirror the same lead section practice for this aspect as the John McCain article had went it went up for FAC. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I would think that due to Ron Paul's candidacy labeling Romney the presumptive nominee is premature. He seems to be the likely nominee, but isn't that different from "presumptive" as likely nominee seems to be more about trending while presumptive nominee seems to be more about being actually won, but not formally declared yet? Arnabdas ( talk) 17:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to see how the prep school bullying episode would be presented. It seems to be included as a random accussaion at this point. I am not sure this isn't an issue to use at the moment. Should this be moved to the talkpage and discussed?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Pbmaise ( talk) 11:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Given the fact that WaPo has seriously f'd up this story I propse that the WaPo source not be used under any circumstance regarding this story. At the very least let us wait until more information comes out in order to avoid BLP issues. There is no rush here, there is still plenty of time before the election to try and smear Romney. Arzel ( talk) 13:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Considering that the coverage of Romney is in the hundreds of thousands of articles, inclusion of this would be wp:undue. North8000 ( talk) 17:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Many of today’s principals would be likely to throw the book at a student who pinned down a classmate and clipped his hair, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney did as a high school senior in 1965.
Romney was not disciplined at the time. If such an attack happened in the public schools of 2012, it would probably lead to suspension and might also be referred for expulsion, a number of local public school leaders said following a Washington Post report of the incident involving Romney.
A call to police would probably also be in order because it would be considered an assault, said Alan Goodwin, principal of Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda.
“It would be taken very seriously,” Goodwin said. “Even using the scissors would be considered using a weapon. It would not be an acceptable prank.”
Source: Washington Post. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Which isn't to say that such behaviors should not be held to account. We don't say, "Well, heck, the candidate was in a gang. What do you expect?" That's taking the dictum of the anthropologist "Don't judge one's subjects" too far! Anything is fair game in vetting presidential candidates. And kudos to the Post reporters for managing to get through Mitt's posse's code of silence to expose this event. (If they had been discovered, they could have been pantsed! No. Kidding. I'm sorry.)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 17:07, 14 May 2012 (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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I believe Mormon (no quotes) is best. It is used here as a categorization (e.g., "Mitt is a Mormon"), since members of the LDS Church are commonly referred to as Mormons. It is not used here as a nickname for the LDS Church. WP:Mormon explains that usage of Mormon (no quotes) is appropriate "in reference to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". — Eustress talk 03:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The categorization is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, members of the Church are often known as "Mormons," but that is the nickname that a lot of people call them by. The Church says that the official term for these members is "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Of course some people think that's rather long to say, so the church acknowledges that people will often call the members just "Mormons." Nevertheless, that remains as only a nickname for the church and part of the official name of one of the books of scripture, The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, because of the prophet named Mormon who abridged the original writings. The only other official names with "Mormon" in them are the book Mormon Doctrine and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. As for members themselves, reference to them as "Mormons" remains only a nickname.
So you say that the official info box text is to leave it without nickname quotes. So what? Why shouldn't we ammend that official policy so that it makes room for that type of labeling? And so what if there is "no need" (<--- those are the "you're saying it, not me; and not that I believe you" quotes right there) to change it? That doesn't mean there would be anything "wrong" (as you'd probably say) with adding them, does it? They are not errant. They are not like adding an apostrophe to a word where none belongs, in an attempt to form a plural! They are good to show outsiders the difference between the official church name and the nickname. What's so "sinister" about that? I say we change WP:Mormon's rule about it. Why not? Well, of course that would require a concensus, but why would people have to be so opposed to it?
What about the intro. of Donny Osmond? That uses quotation marks to set apart his nickname of "Donny" from his real name, Donald Clark Osmond, in the form of "Donald Clark 'Donny' Osmond." So there. Why can't the LDS church in info boxes be that same basic way (including be adjusted as WP:Mormon policy)?
MaxxFordham ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC).
Is a template now placed at the very bottom of the article whose only value appears to show that Romney and Jon Huntsman; Sr. are fourth cousins. The problem is that the "selection" elides on the order of 5,000 to 10,000 or more fourth cousins in order to show this OR. The "selection" is made solely for the single purpose of showing a distant relationship between two people, and is a non-notable "family tree" template at best. The fact that it is unsourced or poorly sourced is lagniappe. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
But all of this as it may be, Collect, you appear to have won the argument that Huntsman's relationship to the romney's is peripheral at best. Still, the fact that he is a member of the LDS so-called "royal" Pratt clan is well attested to in the sources and that lineage is appropriate for inclusion in WP about the extended Pratt family.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)New York Times: "...Gielgud rarely saw his famous second cousin, who had left England in 1904, the year of his birth. But the name already had an aura for him. The Terry family were famous for certain characteristics, of which the `Terry charm' was perhaps the most obvious." LINK
NYT May 23, 2000 obit: "Many contemporary critics considered [Gielgud] to be the greatest classical actor of their time." LINK
[ a follow-up to the archived Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 10#military service, moved here from User talk:Wasted Time R ]
Not only can I read, I also have manners, and, as I wrote previously, I would like to see more information about his draft deferment. Waving the hankerchief of student and missionary work at the issue is not sufficiently informative. Pretend Romney is someone you do not like, and imagine researching his deferments from that point of view.
I'd like some insight that connects his early strategy of avoiding military service, with his later personal development that is revealed in both his private (Bain) and public service employment and aspirations. (I don't mind if he's an pacifist, for instance, I'd just like to no why he thought going on his Mormon mission was more important than serving in the military.
Very nice noun-verb agreement, btw. Bravo ! Hlwelborn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlwelborn ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I cannot help but notice that this article seems to have an air of slant in favor of Romney without introducing many areas of controversy. Is anyone else seeing this? Checking the archives, it seems to have been brought up multiple times before but never really corrected. Does anyone agree with this sentiment? If so, this article needs more protection. -- Instantkarma09 ( talk) 02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The assets that Romney's campaign began with included his résumé of success in the business world and his rescuing of the Salt Lake Olympics,[156][165] which matched the commonly held notion that American industry had star players who could straighten out what was wrong in the nation's capital.[166] Romney also had solid political experience as governor together with a political pedigree courtesy of his father, a strong work ethic and energy level, and a large, wholesome-looking family that seemed so perfect as to be off-putting to some voters.[156][165][167] Ann Romney, who had become an outspoken advocate for those with multiple sclerosis,[168] was in remission and would be an active participant in his campaign,[169] helping to soften his political personality.[167] Moreover, with his square jaw, handsome face, and ample hair graying at the temples, Mitt Romney matched one of the common images of what a president should look like.[56][170][171][172] Romney's liabilities included having run for senator and served as governor in one of the nation's most liberal states, having taken some positions there that were opposed by the party's conservative base, and subsequently shifting those positions.[156][165][169] His religion was also viewed with suspicion and skepticism by some in the Evangelical portion of the party.
A while ago we updated the infobox image to a more recent photo (Image A), despite the darkness around Romney's eyes. I've just come across another recent image (Image B) where this is not the issue, although he has a different expression. Thoughts? — Eustress talk 20:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
How about this quote: "Ann Romney's work as a homemaker would enable her husband to pursue his career". This is not very NPVO; it states as fact Mitt's position that a woman's place is in the home. I mean, if she had a job OUTSIDE the home would Mitt NOT have been able to pursue his career? This article appears more like it came from Mitt's campaign website than from a neutral encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.219.69 ( talk) 18:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Why is there a photo of the Cranbrook School on Romney's page? The article is not about Cranbrook. His attendance there amounts to little more than a footnote in the scope of the whole article. It should be removed. The photo would be fine on the Cranbrook School WP page, not on Romney's page. Dezastru ( talk) 23:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this content appropriate for the lead?
"During the course of his political career, his positions or rhetorical emphasis have shifted more towards American conservatism in several areas, with charges of "flip-flopping" and ideological inauthenticity from political opponents often the result." It seems rather unfair to include such inflammatory rhetoric without any sort of challenge, and the sentences seem out of place anyways. Romney's political positions are located at Political positions of Mitt Romney. BLP guidelines. It appears the content is disproportionately represented as long as it remains in the lead. Rarely are biographies subject to criticism from their opponents in the lead. Anything specifically about Romney's historic political stance should be moved to the appropriate section (sourced of course). Thoughts? Wikifan Be nice 05:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittens_Romney .... really?!?!-- Brian Earl Haines ( talk) 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
His campaign staffer's comment about the Etch-A-Sketch looks like it might do severe/permanent damage to Romney's campaign and his career/public image in general. Should this be included in the article or is it simply too soon? 67.88.170.110 ( talk) 17:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is now on the Wikipedia article about the 2012 campaign. It was a plus for Mitt Romney, since he explained the words of his advisor. Gingrich and Santorum looked unpresidential waving the toy around (I've added notes to the campaign page and the Etch A Sketch page, now famous); and Barack Obama looked unpresidential also, referring to the flap. Ron Paul created a short ad saying Gingrich and Santorum were being petty when we have "15TRILLION in Debt, 12million unemployed, and USA at war." The only person who benefited was candidate Romney who explained it well and appeared to be the only presidential-looking adult in the room. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I can think of no modern campaign where no one has not been accused of changing positions during a campaign - even of having two simultaneously different positions in different parts of the country. All parties. All candidates. Sans exception as far as I can tell since 1964 when Goldwater in the US made the mistake of being consistent. Also true in Europe (vide current elections in France etc.). Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
References
bizweek
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Somebody quantified them (per genealogical researcher Wm. Reitwiesner) as
40.6% England [mostly N.W. Engl/part W. Midlands]
18.8% Scotland
28.1% Colonial-Yankee
12.5% North-German
approx. 2% French-Huguenot.
Fwiw.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Tho
this commenter believes the Wilcken line Danish (which family name constituted a partial influence on the selection of Mitt's actual first name of Willard?). (Btw, Anna Wilcken's father, Charles Henry Wilcken (aka Carl Heinrich W.)
had desertedbeen unaccountably AWOL from the U.S. Army that had been moving westward overland on a mission to, eventually, establish
Fort Douglas in Salt Lake City (aka the City of the Great Salt Lake) some time before he decided to marry Anna W.'s mother. Eventually he got paperwork declaring he had not deserted but had been captured by
Nauvoo Legion guerrillas (aka the Mormons); see "
Utah War.")--
Hodgdon's secret garden (
talk) 21:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Absent a GENUINE RELIABLE SOURCE, this is all counting angels on needles. Collect ( talk) 22:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
How come there isn't one? Sure it'd be controversial, but it's an area that needs analysing regarding the guy (and the subject of BBC article today - which covers his cousin's apostasy as well). I was quite surprised this doesn't cover it in a dedicated section. Oh, and the article mentions the underwear thing ;) Malick78 ( talk) 16:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
In short: where a BLP lists the religious affiliation of a person, and existing articles on Wikipedia give the tenets and beliefs of that sect in substantial detail, it is silly to add the tenets and beliefs to the BLP as well. We should not add "believes in transubstantiation" to the BLP of every Roman Catholic, nor "believes in a literal Adam and Eve" to everyone who is Orthodox Jewish, nor "believes Muhammed flew on a horse" to every BLP of a Muslim, and this case is no different. It is not encyclopedic, in short, to ascribe every tenet of a sect or group to which one belongs in a BLP on that person. Nor should any labels concerning those beliefs thus be attached to the individual either. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
As far as the importance in this 2012 election cycle, much was already covered in the 2008 election cycle and people are not that interested now. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The article deals with Romney's religious activities in a comprehensive manner, in the appropriate places in the biographical narrative. The material isn't hard for the reader to find, by looking at the Table of Contents and/or doing browser searches for "Mormon" or "LDS". And agree with Eustress and Collect that this article is not the place to delve into theological details of the religion. Wasted Time R ( talk) 03:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
There is mention at the end of the article to Romney receiving an award from the Becket Fund. His charitable trust donated $25,000 to that organization in 2010. The Becket Fund is one of the parties currently advancing lawsuits against the HHS mandates (they also were the counsel for the defense in the Hosana-Tabor case, which Romney has attacked the Obama Administration for their position in it) and while they have defended the freedom of everyone from Sikhs to Muslims, they are often at odds with the ACLU. Do people think coverage of the Romney-Becket Fund connection is worth while. By Romney Charitable Trut standards $25,000 is a drop in the bucket, but it is a noticable fund and far more than I have donated to the Becket Fund, since my donations probably total more like $25. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 07:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
"Human Rights Campaign revealed that Governor Romney, an outspoken opponent of same-sex unions, donated a generous $10,000 to NOM back in 2008. That puts Romney’s magnamimous gesture — under the name of his “Free and Strong America” PAC — right around the same time the organization was strategizing on how to incite racial division in its touching efforts to preserve American values. "
The article is in pretty good shape IMO (despite the fact that Juli Weiner seems to believe it's " decidedly judgemental," heh heh! ) Since tonight all but wraps the party nomination, should we now nominate this blp for FA status?-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 03:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"Romney spent over $7 million of his own money, and Kennedy spent more than $10 million from his campaign fund"
The statement is ambiguous and confusing.
Was the entire Romney campaign financing limited exclusively to Romney money?
Or were total Romney expenditures superior to $7 million, therefore leading to a false comparison between Kennedy and Romney campaign spending?
Or were total personal Romney contributions to the campaign less than $7 million?
The footnote links for this sentence do not appear to function at this time.
82.224.103.123 ( talk) 14:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for these corrections.
The second link still does not work for me.
In the case of the book cited, is it possible to actually quote the book, at least in the footnote? Or is this not accepted practice?
82.224.103.123 ( talk) 11:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It fails to mention anything after mid-February. Ironically enough, everything after then has been all for Romney and now people are seeing him as the presumptive nominee. He his wayyy too far ahead in the delegate count for the final line "Romney has maintained that delegate margin through subsequent contests" to do it justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees317 ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
"In July 1966, Romney left for 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary, a traditional duty that his father and other relatives had done.[16][30][31] "
Given that there is controversy surrounding the draft, great care should be taken in the neutrality of this passage.
This passage seems to imply that other Romney relatives also served 30 months as a missionary in France, or at least implies that a similar length of service is "a traditional duty", which it is not.
Is 30 months indeed a traditional period of service? Did other Romney relatives also serve 30 months?
Perhaps rephrasing is enough to remove the ambiguity. Or perhaps more information would be useful?
82.224.103.123 ( talk) 12:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, "a traditional duty that his father and other relatives had done" is a clear attempt to diffuse accusations that Romney was avoiding inscription. Otherwise, there is no need for the information in this article. It should AT LEAST be stated in a neutral and factual manner.
82.224.103.123 ( talk) 12:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The question is not whether you or I believe Romney was evading the draft by seeking repeated deferments of various natures. The question is about the neutrality of the passage in this encyclopedia. I do not believe it is neutral as it stands.
78.250.154.181 ( talk) 17:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia page on Mormon Missionaries, defining it as a 'duty" would seem to be exaggerated, it is apparently optional, and the usual length is 2 years. I would consider simply removing the phrase, "a traditional duty that his father and other relatives had done", which seems to be politically motivated. If the passage is going to spend time pointing out what was "normal" about his missionary period, then it should also point out what was exceptional.
Rephrasing might also make the passage more neutral.
78.250.154.181 ( talk) 18:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the change. I believe it is an improvement. This is not the place to discuss the political implications of various people avoiding serving their country in time of war, unless that has an effect on the article.
82.224.103.123 ( talk) 13:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
pertaining to the statement, "During 2011, The New York Times described Romney's persona as facts-driven, cautious, formal, socially stiff, and 'spare with his emotions,'" in the M.R. "Public image" daughter article is here.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 19:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
One of Mitt Romney's defining characteristics as a politician is how he constantly changes his views. Thus, unlike other politicians, a section on his flip-flops is in order. When I tried to post the following section, however, someone immediately deleted it (probably a hardcore Romney supporter or a member of his campaign staff). What do you guys think?
Throughout his political career, Mitt Romney has been notorious for saying one thing, then saying another later on.
Flip | Flop |
---|---|
"Illegal immigrants should have a chance to obtain citizenship.” | "[There should be] no special pathway to citizenship." |
"I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” | "Ronald Reagan is one of my heroes." |
"I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself.” | "I do not personally own a gun." |
"I think the global warming debate is now pretty much over.” | "With regards to global warming, that’s something, which, you’re right, the scientists haven’t entirely resolved." |
Romney opposed a ban on same-sex marriage. | Romney joined petition backers of the Protection of Marriage Amendment. |
Romney endorsed embryonic stem cell research. | Romney vowed to press for legislation to criminalize embryonic stem cell research. |
Romney signed a bill Wednesday requiring all people of Massachusetts to buy health insurance. | Romney is now criticizing his health care plan. |
“I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose." | "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment." |
Athleek123 ( talk) 05:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
i'd expect this trash on MSNBC or FOX not on wikipedia. quotes shouldn't be included period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.67.101 ( talk) 20:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The picture of his father and Nixon is much less relevant than a picture of both parents (see the George Romney article). Moreover, picking out an image of one of America's worst and most despised presidents seems absurd for this article, especially given that Mitt Romney is not even in the picture. Is it just happenstance that this picture was selected instead of one showing his father marching for civil rights or the like? 198.228.194.180 ( talk) 23:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
99.181.137.3 ( talk) 03:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Please add the below entry to the category listed as Political Positions and Public Perceptions. It can easily go under the second or paragraph which describes his stance on civil rights for all, or the fifth paragraph which describes how his attitudes have contributed to the perception of his inauthenticity."
Mitt Romney has consistently argued against immigration reform and for the swift deportation of all undocumented immigrants in the United States. He recently criticized the suggestion by another conservative candidate, Newt Gingrich, to legalize those immigrants who have lived here for decades who "go to church and pay their taxes" as "Amnesty".
"This information can be found via a simple google search but I've included a link to a reliable source below. This information is relevant to the American people looking for all information about a presidential candidate. We need to know their character, their family histories, and their historical decision making on the issues that could affect our lives." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/mitt-romney-mexican_n_1192694.html
Thank you.
Jpb121 ( talk) 05:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. --
Tyrannus Mundi (
talk) 13:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)" Bill Maher responds to S.E. Cupp who claims Mitt Romney gives a lot of his money to charity every year: 'I got to call bullshit on that one. All his charitable donations are to Mormons. He gives to his cult. - They're not poor people. Name one poor Mormon."--- RCP vid
Maher sort of has a point. The LDS do a lot of charitable work (and some of Romneys' donations to the LDS are not specifically "tithing" but are in other categories); in any case, the lion's share of tithing money per se goes to building temples and the like.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 01:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Surely the fact he posthumously his militant atheist father in law should be mentioned somewhere http://gawker.com/5879888/, I'd add it myself but I don't think I could add it in a non-POV way as IMO it is a petty despicable and disrespectful thing to do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.87.193 ( talk) 16:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
[hattip: Romney's highschoolmate Mike Kinsley] (or, perhaps, " Public image of----")?
In the private sector if you don’t change your view when the facts change, well, you’ll get fired for being stubborn and stupid.--- Mitt Romney
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 01:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
When there is a family article with many notable individuals in it (eg the Kennedys), the ancestry of any particular member (eg Jack) may well best belong in that family member's indiv. bio (see eg Spencer family, Diana, Princess of Wales#Ancestry; Kennedy family and John F. Kennedy#Ancestors;...but, then, there's also eg Family of Barack Obama#Ancestries and Barack Obama).
Ancestors of Mitt Romney/Archive 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 05:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Roman word but which one is more adequate usurpator or uzurper ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 04:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
"Romney...playfully teased with...Wiiillard, Wiiillard.... Bailey, a scholarship student and head prefect of the school...described Romney...as an awkward adolescent with a penchant for practical jokes. The children of other auto executives would taunt Romney for the Ramblers he and his father drove. 'That’s not a car, that’s a bicycle with a dishwasher for an engine'...."
WaPo lol. Love it.also
-Glee Club
-started the Blue Key Club, ...students who “know the campus and Cranbrook traditions well”...as ambassador to parents and prospective students
-homecoming weekend,...a “brilliantly hilarious monologue”
-co-chairman of the Speculators Club
-leading role in the American Field Service, which helped bring foreign students to the campus
-leadership role on a student cabinet organization and during his senior year took a bus with some Kingswood girls to volunteer at the nearby state mental hospital
-school paper...special correspondent at the funeral of President John F. Kennedy.
Mitt Romney Comments on Kennedy Funeral...Dec. 17, 1963,...the Crane. “Note: Personal comments and observations made by Mitt Romney in Washington, Nov. 25, 1963.”
“The old Washington theory of relativity, briefly: one is important only until a bigger brass appears, was blatently [sic] obvious for whenever before have we had the top potentates of the world here to outrank our dignitaries? We all recall the day when we saw a senator of the like in some big, black limosine [sic] drive through our town. Most likely our mouths were hanging wide open as our Mommies and Daddies told us the man out there was a very important person who worked in Washington.”[ ... ... ]
-cross-country runner
-Pep Club
-school’s hockey team...manager--
Hodgdon's secret garden (
talk) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
We agree that the claim of the new source that states Romney was a Democrat is factually correct, but we disagree whether it is too trivial or not to change the content of the current article. In particular, we disagree on what to do, whether to leave unchanged or not, with this article statement: "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, [Romney] was registered as an Independent." 13:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I was made aware of a rumor that Romney, aside from the shifts in political positions over time, had once been a member of the Democratic party through an old law that registered independent affiliated voters as partisan depending on the primary a person chose to vote in. I looked in the wiki article and the section where I was expecting clarification of this rumor instead seem to gloss over this seemingly unimportant matter.
According to Buzzfeed.com, Romney's participation in voting for Paul Tsongas had triggered and automatic enrollment into the Democratic Party. It took his direct action to revert back to independent status. Whether it is in anyone's estimation that switching parties on a technicality is not on the level of running for office under the party affiliation is not relevant; it is an interesting bit of knowledge that would satisfy wikipedia's mission as being a repository of knowledge. The fact that at least in my example I had came to wikipedia for an answer is testament to the factoid's right of inclusion in the article. The only matter that deserve's debate is Buzzfeed's reputation as a reliable secondary source. This is the reason I bring this matter to the Romney discussion page as I am not familiar with the source, but the information the article conveys seems legitimate. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 05:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Compare these two statements:
If we consider the assertion as true that Romney was technically registered as a Democrat (no matter how briefly) because of the statutes of the State of Massachusetts in 1992, statement (1) is false but statement (2) as constructed is true. If this is so, then either we must substitute statement (2) for statement (1) or we edit statement (1) to agree with the seemingly undisputed statement of fact that I introduced. It is simply unproductive to maintain that the article should stay the same in light of the new information presented. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 02:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is my proposed change taking Dezastru's suggestion into consideration:
In a traditional encyclopedia or political history compendium, an asterisk and a footnote would be put next to statements that could be challenged for accuracy. Of course, wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia but the same standards for prose used to convey information on the topic should be respected. As suggested earlier, I would prefer "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he had been registered as an Independent except for a brief statutory affiliation switch in the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, when he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas" or "Romney was a registered Independent from 1976 until he voted in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary for the former senator from the state Paul Tsongas when he momentarily became de jure a Democrat. By the 1994 U.S. Senate race, Romney aligned himself with Republican Massachusetts Governor..." as the change does not mislead the reader nor is weighted to give a false impression of an ideological change but reflects statements of fact. In the alternative, to mimic the usage of a clarifying footnote, I would proprose that we add the Buzzfeed source as a citation to the statement "In the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas." If no change is made, I would reaffirm that the article commits the error by omission. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 22:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It is good as written. The common meanings of "registered" and "member" certainly do not include choosing to vote in one democratic primary. And second, there is no one "official". North8000 ( talk) 11:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to thank everyone for the input. For a while I thought I was at an impasse with Wasted Time R because the key point of disagreement seems to be one interpretation, not unlike the ongoing Constitutional debate. Do we loosely or strictly interpret? I do acknowledge that many phrases in our American lexicon lend themselves to common interpretation and in the case of an article written about an American politician such consideration should be given due weight. But what I hope everyone sees here is that the editing process is not so black and white and that due consideration should be given for valid arguments. Sgt. R.K. Blue's suggestion of adding [Massachusetts' 1992 open presidential primary] is an example of what seems like a black and white edit that many editors would accept as valid. But as Wasted Time R correctly points out, the understanding of terms such as open primary as commonly understood is not quite applicable due to the circumstances of the time and place in the source cited. Likewise, I would humbly impress upon everyone that though being registered a Democrat and being a member of the Democratic Party are different animals, we should not be afraid of including these terms when they are properly expressed. Also, I would like to suggest that as editors we may fall to the bias of how we perceive a thing to be because of our unique experience; in this case, those that have voted under particular state jurisdictions will perceive party affiliation as a product their circumstance and apply that understanding to general process of party affiliation where no such general consensus exist (aside from perhaps donating money) because each State GOP/Democrat party sets up their own rules and often in partnership with local and state jurisdictions.
Therefore, to move forward to a consensus, I implore everyone to look at the following options and add either yes or no response depending on the merits; ideally, the option with all yes responses will constitute consensus. i know it doesn't always work that way.
Option 1) Keep as is. No changes.
Option 2) Keep text as is but add the Buzzfeed source as reference to end of the second sentence. (This allows the reader who wants to know the unabridged version to find it without adding contested verbiage).
Option 3) Add a clarifying phrase to original text: "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he had been registered as an Independent except for a brief statutory affiliation switch in the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, when he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas."
Option 4) Reword text (for better prose) to read: "Romney was a registered Independent from 1976 until he voted in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary for the former senator from the state Paul Tsongas when he momentarily became de jure a registered Democrat. By the 1994 U.S. Senate race, Romney aligned himself with Republican Massachusetts Governor..." (This wording implies that Romney was registered as an independent from 1976 to 1994, except for a momentary switch.)
Option 5)??? K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that one's party affiliation is, by definition, whatever that person says it is. End of story. North8000 ( talk) 11:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is way overblown. If Mr. Romney wants to claim that he cast an actual valid vote for Paul Tsongas, then yes, fine, he's totally free to claim that.
However, by the same token, he must necessarily (according to the Supreme Court's reading of the Constitution of the United States of America) have been a member of the Democratic party at the moment when he cast that vote.
He can't have it both ways. Seriously, I'm not sure what we're arguing about here? This isn't rocket science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.193.3 ( talk) 22:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I've backed out this edit because it was overly detailed for the lead section (April is good enough) and especially for the first paragraph (just say who he is), used a cite (this article follows the style where the lead section has no cites, but everything introduced is repeated and cited in the article body), and because it clashed with the April 24 date given in the article body. The standard meaning of "presumptive nominee" is the leader has gained enough delegates to win the nomination, which won't happen for Romney until late this month or early next. However after the April 24 sweep, the RNC Chair proclaimed him the presumptive nominee, which is good enough for our purposes and what the article body states and the end of the lead section echoes. This article is going up for FAC, and I want to mirror the same lead section practice for this aspect as the John McCain article had went it went up for FAC. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I would think that due to Ron Paul's candidacy labeling Romney the presumptive nominee is premature. He seems to be the likely nominee, but isn't that different from "presumptive" as likely nominee seems to be more about trending while presumptive nominee seems to be more about being actually won, but not formally declared yet? Arnabdas ( talk) 17:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to see how the prep school bullying episode would be presented. It seems to be included as a random accussaion at this point. I am not sure this isn't an issue to use at the moment. Should this be moved to the talkpage and discussed?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Pbmaise ( talk) 11:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Given the fact that WaPo has seriously f'd up this story I propse that the WaPo source not be used under any circumstance regarding this story. At the very least let us wait until more information comes out in order to avoid BLP issues. There is no rush here, there is still plenty of time before the election to try and smear Romney. Arzel ( talk) 13:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Considering that the coverage of Romney is in the hundreds of thousands of articles, inclusion of this would be wp:undue. North8000 ( talk) 17:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Many of today’s principals would be likely to throw the book at a student who pinned down a classmate and clipped his hair, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney did as a high school senior in 1965.
Romney was not disciplined at the time. If such an attack happened in the public schools of 2012, it would probably lead to suspension and might also be referred for expulsion, a number of local public school leaders said following a Washington Post report of the incident involving Romney.
A call to police would probably also be in order because it would be considered an assault, said Alan Goodwin, principal of Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda.
“It would be taken very seriously,” Goodwin said. “Even using the scissors would be considered using a weapon. It would not be an acceptable prank.”
Source: Washington Post. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Which isn't to say that such behaviors should not be held to account. We don't say, "Well, heck, the candidate was in a gang. What do you expect?" That's taking the dictum of the anthropologist "Don't judge one's subjects" too far! Anything is fair game in vetting presidential candidates. And kudos to the Post reporters for managing to get through Mitt's posse's code of silence to expose this event. (If they had been discovered, they could have been pantsed! No. Kidding. I'm sorry.)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 17:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)