Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 12

Mormon or "Mormon" in infobox
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)


 * Agree that no quotes is best. This is also the standard infobox religion entry for all LDS politicians.  There's no need to change it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:10, 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).


 * See Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints, which is an extensive guide on what terms to use when writing about subjects related to this topic. See the WP:MORMON section within that, and the "Denominations and recommended short forms" table later, for when the word Mormon should be used.  Nowhere does it say that Mormon should be in quotes, and no illustrative example has it in quotes.


 * If you disagree with this, you should bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints and try to convince all the editors of the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement of your case. As it is, three different editors have reverted you here at this article, and you are clearly trying to change this article against consensus.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * WastedTime is right. The MOS says all that needs be said.  Without quotes is correct.  --Coemgenus (talk) 12:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's important that a person will understand a word. I can say it only for Germany, if you will say, there was a person which chated to me on the street he was a member of the "Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage" (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint), he will understand nothing, but if you say he was Mormon, he will understand and will say something with polygamy question and so on. Should it be different in the USA? Why not the common and understandable word first? - so Mormon (as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint) into the infobox. In the article David Hasselhoff e.g. is only to read that he is a Lutheran and not to read in which church, e.g. ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) or LCMS (Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod). So I suppose the important information should be first which faith a person owns and after it in which church-organisation he is. In the case of Lutheranism would be there some little differences, but it is first important that a person will understand the primary direction. Possibly the David Hasselhoff example ist not perfect, because there ist only to read he is a lutheran and not that he is ELCA, LCMS, but it is easy to understand, beside that a abbrevation with Luther in it would be better to understand. --- So I am not sure, so why not first mormon into the infobox, it is important that it is common, easy understandable and so really english in this case I suppose? --Soenke Rahn (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, I agree "Mormon" should precede the full name of the churcy in tabular matter about individuals who happen to be LDS. I've now stated as much on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Selected Jared Pratt Descendants"
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)
 * If I wished to violate wp:AGF I'd consider the assertion that the template's sole purpose is to refer to Jon Huntsman Sr to be mere sophistry. But, to take the assertion at face value, I'll mention that the family also includes Geo. Romney's close cousin Marion G. Romney and Marion's academic father; Geo. Romney's grandfather Helaman Pratt, who purchased on behalf of the LDS Church the land that became the Mormon settlement of Colonia Juarez, Chihuahua; and Pratt's father Parley and uncle Orson. (Although Orson himself is a famous Mormon theologian, Parely is considered the "apostle paul" of Mormonism, a sect having as many adherents in the US as there are Jews: approx. 1.7% of the population each--and, also, worldwide: viz., about 50% of Mormons and also about 50% of Jews live outside of the U.S.) It also includes for Geo. Romney's immediate family, including his wife Lenore, his son, the subject of this blp, and his daughter-in-law, Ann, &c. Cf., for example, Bush family, Coppola family, Template:Obama family chart, File:Udallpoliticalfamily.gif, &c.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've staked out my position (in between both of yours) at Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 7. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove template from this article. I'm fine with the template existing (it's well-suited for Pratt family) but agree that it is POV to include here. ("Selected" = POV) A similar issue has been acknowledged on John F. Kennedy, where a list of his ancestors is shown (not POV), but Template:Kennedy family tree is not employed on the page; in fact, the template is not used on any individual's article, but only on Kennedy family. —Eustress talk 16:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While of course, what's-used-where can enlighten, it innt dispositive and, IAC, the bottom-page banner is not a part of the article proper but is a navigation aid related to the family. That said, perhaps it is not needed here, since the family is usually grouped around its patriarch, Mitt's father, IAC--so whether it is used here or not is not that important, IMHO, and I've tentatively deleted it. (Btw, the chart [Edited: the various articles] can be so engineered as to show a more complete version including, say, the Huntsman line, in one context--such as, say, the Pratt family article--and not to show the Huntsman line but to add Miles Romney, in another--such as, say, on the Romney family article.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Done.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How can you elide the other 10,000 or so fourth cousins unless the only aim is to show the two specific fourth cousins?   Collect (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just researched the relationship and Huntsman and Romney are third cousins.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not every member of a family is notable; for example, whereas the Terrys were and are prominent in British theatre--and no doubt Sir John Gielgus is but 3rd cousins with yet other members of the same extended family who also practiced this craft the same generation that Sir John did, nevertheless the existence of such an acting family is well attested to by sources and is an important one in the theatre (and, in John's personal history, it was owing to his study with family members and his working up from being a stage hand, etc., that he became the famous Shakespearean actor that he became)."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"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&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside (that is, owing to the fact that the nav box is no longer contained on this page, in any case): the way I read the rough consensus of this talkpage discussion is that whereas a few Romney progenitors in it are not Pratt descendants and wouldn't belong under the Pratt family rubric, a nav box appropriate for use in relation to the Romneys should in turn not contain superfluous Pratt family members.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Military service redux
[ a follow-up to the archived Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 10, 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)


 * First, you have no clue about whether I like this Romney or not. But anyway, I know of no source that provides the insight you are looking for.  I would strongly suspect that like most sons of affluence at the time, he had no desire to go to Vietnam.  He subsequently said conflicting things (natch) – in 1994 saying that he never planned on signing up for military service, in 2007 saying that he had longed to actually be in Vietnam and be representing the U.S. there.  But both statements are long after the fact and aren't worth much.  However, it's important to make clear that his missionary service was not a strategy to avoid the draft, as you seem to imply.  He would almost certainly have done it anyway, as it was, and is, an important assignment for young Mormons and also something his father had done (Mitt's only brief doubts at the time mostly centered around worries about losing his girlfriend).  Indeed if the Vietnam War had never happened, Mitt's life would have unfolded exactly the way it did anyway.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * One other point is that the Mormon missionary deferment became controversial during the war, leading to the LDS Church to put some limits on how many young males could be so exempted. But this cap was done on a per-ward, per-congregation basis, and only locations in Utah and other LDS-heavy areas out West were generally affected.  In Michigan, where Romney lived, there were few Mormons and thus more than enough exemption slots to go around.  This is covered in the Draft evasion article, but it seems a digression to go into here in this article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Romney's draft deferrement was not a result of his father being an "affluent". Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of all socio-economic levels recieved draft deferments due to missionary service.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You misinterpreted what I said. Affluent young men across all religious groups generally had no desire to go to Vietnam.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV?
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)


 * If you checked the archives, you also know that it hasn't been "corrected" because no one ever provides specifics to back up these claims of slantedness. So please list four or five of the "many areas of controversy" that this article ignores.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You apparently have a long history with this article, and your attitude is not needed. For instance, Romney's taxes are mentioned, but not once is it brought up the criticism that came along with it. You have before delete sections that include Romney's image as a flip-flopper and throughout the article this is image is just regarded as "dismissed." There is apparently no mention of Restore Our Future, the SuperPAC in favor of Romney and, coincidentally, the wealthiest. The article is largely opinionated--the tone is not balanced, and anytime a criticism is introduced it is almost automatically crushed, creating a lack of relative prominence for opposing views. I am no expert on Romney, I am trying to open this to serious discussion. You seem to hawk in on the comment sections and squash any dissent. If numerous people are complaining about the tone of this article it should be discussed more. --Instantkarma09 (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for voicing your concerns. To help the community better understand them, please list specific text that you believe is problematic or information you believe is lacking along with supporting reliable sources. For other pointers on how you can be most effective here, please consult Talk page guidelines. Regards —Eustress talk 20:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Instantkarma09, thanks very much for your response and the specific comments in it. First some general points.  If I conveyed an attitude, that was unintentional.  I grab onto these comments in the Talk page because I am the main author of this article, and if it is slanted then it is probably me who has screwed up.  I am also the main author of a lot of other political biographies here, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joe Biden, John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Charles Rangel, George W. Romney, Geraldine Ferraro, and others.  So you can safely conclude that I like some of these subjects and don't like others, and that I'd vote for some and not for others, but my goal is always that you can't tell which is which.  It does pain me that all of the slanted/biased comments on this article run in one direction, and I have been trying to figure out why.  And that is why, as Eustress also says, that specific comments are needed; overall complaints about tone and lack of criticism do no good without the particular places they attach to.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Now on to the three specific points you raised:
 * Romney's taxes. I have added text that makes it clear that he benefited from the lower rate accorded to investment income, and a link to the article that describes that part of the tax code.  However I do not think mentioning criticism of his tax rate in the "Wealth" part of the article is warranted, since Romney didn't do anything illegal or unethical here – the criticism was of the general idea of taxing investment at a lower rate than regular earnings, which is off topic for this article.  If it been a really big campaign issue, it could be mentioned in the campaign section, but it was more of the two-days-and-on-to-the-next-flap kind.
 * Image as a flip-flopper. I've never deleted any mention of this that I can recall.  The 2012 mention was unnecessarily complicated, as I now read it back, and I've simplified it (the lack of prominence early was mostly a quirk of who attacked whom in the debates, and in retrospect the attention given the climate change flop was no greater than for any of the others).  And the 2008 campaign section talks about this extensively.  Look at this paragraph for instance, which yes gives Romney's defense (which is only fair) but is otherwise pretty unsparing in attributing this image as a major factor in his defeat.  What do you see in here that 'dismisses' the image:
 * "At a Saint Anselm College debate, Huckabee and McCain pounded away at Romney's image as a flip flopper.[183] Indeed, this label would stick to Romney through the campaign[165] (but was one that Romney rejected as unfair and inaccurate, except for his acknowledged change of mind on abortion).[167] Romney seemed to approach the campaign as a management consulting exercise, and showed a lack of personal warmth and political feel; journalist Evan Thomas wrote that Romney "came off as a phony, even when he was perfectly sincere."[167][186] Romney's staff would conclude that competing as a candidate of social conservatism and ideological purity rather than of pragmatic competence had been a mistake.[167][187]"
 * No mention of Restore Our Future. There was one mention of the pro-Romney Super PAC, but I didn't give the name, and that's a definite oversight given that there is an article on it.  I've added that and a link, as well as an indication that he and the SuperPAC had a big spending edge in Florida, as well as an indication that he again had a big spending edge in Ohio.  When the nomination race is over, we can give totals for 2012 for both campaigns and Super PACs, but for now I think this is about as good as we can do.  And thanks for bringing this omission to attention.
 * So anyway, please give some more specifics of what you think is slanted about this article, and I will try to address them. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, regarding point #2, I've decided to be bolder still. The lead has long had text that describes his shift to more conservative positions over time, but I've now appended to that this: ", with charges of "flip-flopping" and ideological inauthenticity from political opponents often the result."  It is suspected that a lot of people only read the lead sections of articles, and this will give a fuller and more balanced view of Romney's political career for them.  I expect that this may be objected to by some editors, but the addition is factually correct (and sourced multiply times in the article body), fairly weighted, and should go some way towards reducing the feeling of readers that the article is biased.  I thought about doing this a few weeks ago, but now feel more certain that it's the appropriate way to go.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Specific text ... that is problematic"? The following passage is totally inappropriate for a BLP encyclopedic entry as currently worded:
 * "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."
 * undefined"star players who could straighten out what was wrong with the nation's capital"
 * "wholesome-looking family that seemed so perfect"
 * "handsome face, and ample hair graying at the temples"
 * "what a president should look like"undefined
 * There is some material in this passage that is of value, such as the fact that Romney's wife has been an advocate for multiple sclerosis and played a part in the campaign. But someone needs to rework this passage for it to be acceptable as a whole. I am deleting this passage pending that revision.--Dezastru (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (Correction: my comment on the edits page was that I removed a NPOV passage - that should have been a "POV" passage, not "NPOV")  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezastru (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with this removal. The point of the BLP guidelines is not to say nothing about the subject!  The point is to be fair and accurate and well-sourced, all of which this is.  All presidential candidates start with some positive assets that appeal to voters and all have some negative aspects that don't appeal to voters.  This passage is simply describing them, using high-quality mainstream cites.  You really don't think that star appeal matters in politics?  Family?  Looks?  Of course they do.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "The point of the BLP guidelines is not to say nothing about the subject!" Agreed. But the cited texts do not substantiate the claims on the basis of, say, majority or even plurality opinions in public opinion surveys. The claims, as presented in the cited texts, are merely the opinions of the political commentators who have written those books/articles. Saying that Mitt Romney's family is wholesome-looking and seems so perfect or that Romney looks presidential is fine for cable tv political commentary or a newspaper op-ed piece or a political blog. It is not fine for such statements to be presented as fact in a WP article, unless the article is specifically discussing the opinions of political commentary. (See also Neutral_point_of_view and ATTRIBUTEPOV.) Clinton was one of the most intelligent and effective presidents vs In polls of presidential scholars, Clinton was judged to have been one of the most intelligent and effective presidents. See the difference? Also, the addition of the word solid in the phrase solid political experience is an editorial comment not supported by the cited reference. The problem with the sentence 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 is that, as it is worded, it leaves open the inference that Romney was a star player who could straighten out what was wrong in Washington. This borders on a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. The reference cited for the star player portion of the WP article sentence reads: "Soon it became received wisdom that the business bench is crowded with star players able and eager to clean up the mess in Washington. As a result, politicians began donning business masks. Cheers erupted when politicians claimed managerial experience and gravely pledged to run American government 'like a business.' Indeed, various business leaders (Ross Perot, the two Romneys, Mitt and his father George) took the idea further and ran for president themselves." That passage does not say that Romney was a star player able to clean up the mess in Washington. What it says is that there was a commonly held notion that such business managers existed and that Romney was one of the political players who capitalized on that belief. So, as I wrote above, there is valuable information in that now-deleted passage from the Romney WP article. But it needs to be reworded to be appropriate for inclusion in a WP article on a politician who is engaged in an active campaign for office. Think about it: Was/Is Romney's family more wholesome-looking than McCain's or Santorum's or Obama's? Does Romney look more presidential than Hillary Clinton? What does "looking presidential" even mean?Dezastru (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In general, I side with the removal of the content. Also, keep in mind that the article does mention (appropriately so) Romney's inclusion in People magazine's list of the 50 Most Beautiful People. No opinion, just fact. —Eustress talk 00:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Will all respect, Eustress, your reasoning is a perfect example of why no academic publisher or scholarly journal considers citations of WP articles as having any worth, and specifically rejects their use. "FACT"?  With all respect, hogwash.  MadZarkoff (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dezastru, you raise some good points, but in general I thought I was doing what you think should be done. For instance, on the business experience item, we're both using the "commonly held notion" phrase; I have no belief, nor want to convey any belief, that business guys would actually do better as president than anyone else.  But it's important to include, since it's still pretty much the rationale for his candidacies. As for looks, yes they matter to some degree, as any account of the first 1960 JFK-Nixon debate would say.  It's not random chance that the U.S. has had no short, fat presidents in the modern era, even though the country has plenty of short, fat people.  Most presidential contenders are neither especially presidential looking or not presidential looking (e.g. Hillary), and so their articles don't need to say anything.  But occasionally there is one who really comes out of central casting (and enough prominent writers remarked upon Romney in this regard that it merits mentioning), as well as ones who don't (Ron Paul now, Paul Simon some years ago would probably be examples).  Anyway, let me work on some wording to address these concerns.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restored the text with several modifications. I've tried to make clear what we agree upon regarding business types running for president, and I've added a further qualifier based upon a good CSM piece that I added as a source.  I've taken out "solid".  I've taken out the "that seemed so perfect as to be off-putting to some voters" clause of the wholesome-looking family, but left that phrase itself in.  Having a photogenic and scandal-free nuclear family is definitely an asset in running for president, and it was for Obama too.  (Want an example of a family that was a negative?  Rudy Giuliani was on his third wife by the time of his 2007-2008 run, she was portrayed in the press as some kind of controlling shrew, and worse still he was estranged from both his children, one of whom pointedly endorsed Obama.)  I've added a "number of commentators noted that" attribution to the looks-like-a-president material, and please note that one of these four cites covers multiple commentators within it.  I can add more cites if you want.  Regarding what Eustress said, that's not the same:  John Edwards probably made the People list too, but he was seen more as a pretty boy than presidential looking.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasted, you've made some good changes. I've added a few additional tweaks.Dezastru (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image
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)


 * I think Image B is better. But neither is really right for the top spot.  Another alternative would be to find a more formal-looking portrait on Romney's website, and then write to them asking for an OTRS permission to use here.  I've seen that done before on similar articles.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I emailed them, so we'll see. In the meantime, anyone else have an opinion b/n A and B? —Eustress talk 00:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Send em a follow up requesting pix of Mitt's family of origin and of his adulthood be released for free public use, with attribution (with no point of view implied to be endorsed by the Romneys, thereby, of course).--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pic A is ruled out (unless it's photoshopped) koz it was taken outdoors w/o an additional flash/diffuser and/or a shade/reflector.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer this portrait from Romney's years at Bain.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 02:32, 20 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)


 * Nope. Infoboxes are not places for making POV claims at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Cranbrook School Photo?
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)


 * Cranbrook is more than a footnote – high school leaves a lasting impression on most people, and it's also where he met his wife. The photo also visibly illustrates that his upbringing was affluent.   That said, if there was any photo of young Mitt that we had rights to use, it would be here instead of this.  One of the biggest failures of this article is that there are no pictures of the subject before age 55.  But with WP's image policy, it's hard to know how to solve it, unless some reader appears with a photo they took in the past and are willing to upload, or unless we use some published Romney family photo from way back when and license it under some kind of historical fair use rationale.  I've been skeptical that the latter would survive an FAC, but others might have different opinions.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

POV concerns, potential BLP violations in the lead
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)


 * The unbolded part has been in the lead for a long time and no one has objected to it (Romney himself has said as much). The bolded part is a recent addition, made in an effort to more accurately summarize the whole article.  I don't think it's a BLP issue; you can look at these Google News search results or these results to see that Romney has faced a lot of accusations of position changes and inauthenticity.  It's pretty much been the central characteristic of his political career.  And the article body does describe all this with plenty of citations.  However, I agree that it is unusual to include something like this in the lead.  I was trying to capture more of the subject, for those readers who only look at the lead.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the recently added phrase should probably be removed. I think saying, "his positions or rhetorical emphasis have shifted more towards American conservatism in several areas" adequately covers the issue in a conservative and disinterested tone, as mandated by BLP. —Eustress talk 14:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand Romney has faced these accusations, but so have other candidates. John Kerry was subject to similar criticism though the lead contains no mention of it. Bush and Obama have all been accused of flip-flopping on many issues. Eustress' suggestion is more NPOV and consistent with other political BLPs. Wikifan Be nice  16:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed the recent addition. (I still think the approach had some merit, but I erred in using the term 'flip-flopper', which is one of those red flags to put in a lead.)  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

redirect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittens_Romney .... really?!?!--Brian Earl Haines (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I've deleted the redirect. —Eustress talk 18:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought Mittens was the name of 90px the kitten on left. Guess somebody should verify this thru Wonkette's Jim Newell. --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Etch-A-Sketch
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)
 * IMHO, this deserves mention at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, but does not belong in his biographical article. He didn't say it himself. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Muboshgu. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree w/ Muboshgu. It is tied to the campaign, so it belongs on the campaign page.--JayJasper (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If it does in fact "do severe/permanent damage to Romney's campaign and his career/public image" then it should be mentioned here in the main article. But that won't be known for some time, so nothing should be said right now.  Most of these gaffes have a two-or three-day half-life and then all the pundits and bloggers and talking heads move on to the next one that some candidate says.  And if you took away all of the supposed gaffes that Romney has made in this campaign (likes to fire people, the $10K bet, friends with NASCAR owners, etc), I think he's still be where he is today: a weak front-runner who's nonetheless going to win the nomination.  His most fundamental problems all along have been his inauthenticity as a conservative and his basic lack of emotional connection with voters, and his most fundamental strengths all along have been credibility on economic matters, superior funding and organization, and a bunch of really weak opponents.  None of these gaffes have changed the basic equation.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 23 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)
 * Further, it gave Mitt Romney opportunity to (1) remain at the top of the news; and (2) reemphasize that he is a Conservative. Here is some text from the Etch A Sketch article: The Romney campaign responded that the quote was in regards to organizational structure, and that Romney would continue talking about the same issues and policies. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012 You can read: Mitt Romney explained the words of his advisor by saying, "A general election campaign takes on a different profile. The issues I'm running on will be exactly the same.  …  I was a conservative Republican governor, and I’ll be running as a conservative Republican nominee."‬ Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:42, 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)

Ethnicities
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&#39;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 deserted been 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&#39;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)


 * I agree with Collect on this one, Romney's 'ethnic' mix, even if it were better sourced than this (Wordpress is never allowed as a WP source), is of little biographical significance. His heritage as a Mormon is far more important to his life than whether some ancestor came from England or France or wherever.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Genealogy is interesting and sometimes relevant, but breaking it down to percentages is pseudo-science at best. Best to leave this out, even if it were sourced better (and I think Reitwiesner should be considered reliable, even if the rest of Wikipedia doesn't).  --Coemgenus (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Religion section?
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)
 * Whereas some politicians (such as Barack Obama) have unclear religious views and merit a dedicated section in the article for explication, Romney belongs to a church with a clear and defined theology. Some of the more salient practices and beliefs Romney adheres to can be found discussed, in context, throughout the article (particularly the sections on missionary service and local church leadership). I feel the nuances of his religion would be undue to include here and can be found in the article on the LDS Church. —Eustress talk 17:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But literally hundreds of articles have been written on Romney and how his religion could be a hurdle for him. To ignore that is moving too far in the opposite direction. An interesting point is made in the above BBC article: '"It's not something you're supposed to talk about," says Prof Robert Putnam of Harvard Kennedy School. "Whenever the issue of Romney's Mormonism has come to the surface, there's been lots of condemnation across the political spectrum for raising the issue of his religion," says Putnam. "I'm not saying it's not relevant, but it's not talked about in polite company." Mitt Romney's biographer, Scott Helman, agrees. "There are plenty of ways in which people try to cause alarm among some voters over it, but it's not something you're allowed to say explicitly," he says.' Perhaps this article, dominated presumably by US editors, is reflecting this? Maybe that is why to me, as a Brit, it seems weird. Don't you think that like all WP articles, the page should respect a world view, not a US tendency to gloss over this? Malick78 (talk) 20:20, 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)

Becket Fund
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)


 * The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty article could use more description of the group's funding sources, activities in court cases, relationship to the ACLU, etc. But I don't see much connection to Romney (his donation came two years after his received the award, not before) or anything worth mentioning in this article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, it could become too WP:COATRACKy. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Romney donated $10,000 to anti-gay marriage group
"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. "
 * HRC: Romney donated to anti-gay marriage group salon.com. 87.164.99.134 (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And he contributed millions to a church which also opposes gay marriage - so what?  You appear more interested in the implicit "racism" charge - for which far stronger sourcing would be required.  BTW, "generous" is a very humourous adjective in that context.  Collect (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Collect. The LDS Church played a much bigger role in the Prop 8 battle than NOM, and Romney donates a lot more money to the church.  And the 'racial division' angle is silly – you always look for demographic slices of your opponents that you can win over to your side on a particular issue, just like the Dems are doing now with suburban Republican women.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Anti-gay-marriage politician donates to anti-gay-marriage group: dog bites man, isn't it? The rest of your point is just WP:COATRACKing.  --Coemgenus (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dual nominations
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&#39;s secret garden (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article is good (a lot of good effort here). But, the Nomination Process will go on longer. I look to Texas being the 'clincher' for Romney, and California 'the hammer' for Romney also. Santorum thinks he will win at a brokered convention and it may well be a brokered convention even with Romney crossing 1,144 (simple majority) sooner. No matter how you slice the timeframe, Romney will win, but not tonight. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A'aight: ...has all but wrapped up -->(per the Assoc.Press) "...has tightened his grip on"? (Or, per an ABC analyst) "The fat lady has sung"? (Per Reuters) "gave him a prohibitive lead...and effectively consigned...Santorum to also-ran status"?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cillizza of the WaPo: "...the de facto nominee" Salon: "...essentially unimaginable that anyone but Romney will be the GOP nominee." Nat'l Review's Michael Walsh: "...primary nominating process is over."--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need to wait for FAC until Romney officially becomes the presumptive nominee, since it's clear it's only a matter of time. But there are some other FAC prep things that I need to do before putting it up.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * True, that. And - OK --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Unclear figures 1994 campaign
"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 bringing this to attention, it was not just confusing but also it seems wrong. The correct totals are Romney > $7M overall, $3M his own, and Kennedy $10.5M overall, $1.5M a loan to himself.  I've corrected the article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:18, 6 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)


 * Linkrot occurs regularly, it's hard for editors to keep up with. I've added a clear cite for Kennedy's spending, will keep looking for alternatives.  (Although I'm also seeing mentions of Kennedy having spent $11.5 million, not $10.5 ... maybe due to later restatements of financial reports or maybe just an error.)  Quoting of sources in footnotes becomes very tedious after a while and is generally not done.  In this case the book used is Kranish and Helman's The Real Romney, which should be available at most libraries.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 section is very anti-Romney.
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)


 * You're wrong about the first part, the primary descriptions go through Super Tuesday in early March. But you've got a point about the rest, so I've modified the final sentence to say "Romney has maintained that delegate margin through subsequent contests and has moved ever close to clinching the nomination.[273][274]"  That's about as much as WP:CRYSTAL permits.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've also changed the lead to say he's the 'clear leader' rather than just the 'leader' in the nomination race. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That is odd, as the rest of the article reads as though it was written by Romney's election team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Missionary Ministry
"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 period of time is not the "duty" - it is just the service as a missionary AFAICT. As a BYU student, he was eligible for a 2-S deferment - the missionary service was not an extraordinary circumstance for a Mormon student, and had nothing to do with implicit "draft evasion" at all.  In short - an "issue" without any sound basis.  Collect (talk) 13:54, 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)
 * And what do you propose changing it to?  Hot Stop  18:02, 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)


 * I wrote the text in question and I never imagined that anyone would read this as relating to the draft! I was merely trying to capture the culture that Romney comes from.  Anyway, I've changed the text in question to "In July 1966, Romney left for 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary.[16][30][31] Missionary work was a traditional rite of passage that his father and many other relatives had volunteered for.[nb 5]"  This clarifies that not all missionaries go to France or do it for 30 months.  It also changes "duty" to "rite of passage", a phrase that is used in the New York Times cite [31] and makes it clear that it is optional although encouraged.  As for his father and other relatives doing it, in fact, Romney's great-grandfather, grandfather, father, two uncles, brother, and five sons all did missionary stints.  My change has added a Note to this effect, with sources given.


 * For most/all of these other relatives there was no conscription going on at the time they went off, so clearly Romney's missionary duty can be seen as part of the cultural and family tradition that he grew up in rather than an attempt to avoid the draft. And had he not been a missionary, Romney would have likely done what others did at the time:  take as many student deferments as he could and then try to grab some sort of other exemption (cf. Clinton, Cheney, Biden, Giuliani, et al).  This may offend current-day sensibilities, but that's the way it was.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 7 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)

An RfC...
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&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning a new section
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?

Flip-Flops
Throughout his political career, Mitt Romney has been notorious for saying one thing, then saying another later on.

Athleek123 (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A section like this does not belong and Hot Stop is correct to revert your addition. The article already describes Romney's position shifts and the criticism he's endured because of them.  See the "2008 presidential campaign" and "Political positions and public perceptions" sections in particular.  Furthermore there is a separate Political positions of Mitt Romney that describes all of this positions, and readers can see which ones have varied over time.  What you wrote is suitable for a 30-second negative ad, but not for a Wikipedia article.  Furthermore, separate "Criticism" and "Controversies" sections are a poor practice, no matter who the subject is.  They are generally considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism.  Back in 2007, a special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' biographical articles of such treatment — see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 1 for the history of that effort — and the same thing has been done for all of the 2012 contenders.  Any controversies and criticisms that merit inclusion in articles should be in their proper chronological place and context. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was unaware this page existed Athleek123 (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

the quotations in this article are not NPOV
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)


 * There is no prohibition against using quotations in WP articles, in fact doing so is encouraged. I've seen right-side quotation boxes used well in other articles, such as Featured Article Zoo TV Tour that I worked on.  Additional FA examples include William Shakespeare, or to take a political one, Harvey Milk.  It's an effective way enlivening the visual presentation of the article, while giving commentary on the article text itself.  The quotes in question are definitely relevant, since they give involve some of the most important aspects of Romney's life (religion, business practices, Massachusetts health-care bill).  As far as NPOV, they are all said by Romney himself, and accurately reflect Romney's perspective at the time he said them ... yet all are at least a little double-edged in a current political sense (he tries not to remind people of his religion, the Bain statement comes off a little cold and clinical, and the Romneycare statement reads with more 'moderateness' than he would probably like now).  So they seem neutral to include to me.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The guy who resigned in disgrace
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)


 * What we need is a picture of Mitt at a young age. Contact the Romney campaign and ask them to release one that can be used under Wikipedia image use rights.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have any connection with the Romney campaign, and have no desire to extort an image from them using the absurd Nixon photo as leverage. The idea that a picture of his father with Richard Nixon is more relevant than a picture of his father with his mother does not pass the smell test.198.228.194.180 (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The image is perfectly appropriate and should neither be removed nor replaced. It directly illustrates a portion of the article regarding Romney's time at Harvard; that his father was a cabinet member at the time.  I wouldn't be opposed to more images, but there is nothing wrong with this one. -- Daniel  00:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of things that could be illustrated in this article, and several ways to illustrate each one. You've chosen to illustrate his father in connection with a disgraced president, which is undue weight.  If I had the slightest connection to the Romney campaign, I would advise them to not have the slightest thing to do with providing anything for this article.  There is only one identifiable non-family member pictured in this article, and that person is Nixon, which is utterly ridiculous.  And that's all I have to say about it.  Cheerio.198.228.194.180 (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC
 * Retain - per wp:WEIGHT and also WP:NOTCENSORED. Any cabinet positions requires U.S. Senate confirmation per the U.S. Constitution and is ipso facto a notable and prestigious status--and, indeed, mention of the fact e/g Caspar Weinberger or whoever served in Nixon's administration should not be avoided, when contextually appropriate.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Retain I think the current image conveys his father's prominence and how that related to Mitt's upbringing, which is more meaningful than an image simply illustrating what his parents looked like. However, I agree with WTR that we should keep working to secure rights to an image of Mitt as a young man. —Eustress talk 04:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Retain Agree with points made by Daniel, Hodgdon, and Eustress. That Romney's father was a US Cabinet Secretary while Romney was a young man is not an insignificant factor in his biography. It must surely have had an influence on the course of Romney's life, including on his views of public service and the proper roles of the federal government; perhaps even on his eventual desire to be president himself. It so happens that the president at the time of Romney's father's service was Nixon. There is no reason to impute any nefarious motives to the inclusion of that picture. Other photos (if there is a photo of Mitt with both parents, for instance) would also be welcome, in addition.
 * (Now, about that picture of the Cranbrook School. THAT could surely go ... ) Dezastru (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Retain this pic. There's nothing nefarious or NPOV about a picture with Nixon in it, and it's certainly relevant (and able to be used here!).  --Coemgenus (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove The picture has almost nothing to do with the section. The section has only a fleeting sentence on Romney's father, if the section was about his father that would be a different story.  Arzel (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If the Nixon photo is used, it would helped the reader follow the thread that led to Mitt Romney's eventual membership with the Republican party ranks. Additionally, as Romney is a political figure, photos relating to other high profile political figures that one assumes a younger Romney met in person at some point would seem apropos. K♪monkey @('_' )@ Talk⇉✌  23:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Add How rich is the Republican presidential candidate? reference
99.181.137.3 (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Six Portraits of Mitt; Just how rich is the Republican presidential candidate? March 12, 2012 American Prospect


 * The article already has a "Wealth" section. Adding a cartoon won't help.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 April 2012
"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)


 * Romney has not "consistently" argued for anything about immigration. His views have shifted from his time as Governor of Massachusetts to running for President, and are shifting even in the past few days as he tries to pivot back to the center and attract more Hispanic votes.  He has not argued for deportation but rather "self-deportation".  Your "source" is a biased, hysterical diatribe based upon Romney's father's Mexican background, which rather than being some kind of revealed secret, has been well-known since at least the magazine articles and biography about George Romney that came out in the late 1950s and 1960.  And detail about the history of Mitt Romney's immigration proposals and actions belongs in Political positions of Mitt Romney and Governorship of Mitt Romney, not here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Tithing / other charitable giving revisited
"'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&#39;s secret garden (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cite for your "lion's share" claim? Absent one, we can not remotely try adding such a claim in any BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This entry from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published by Macmillan Publishing Company, states that tithing funds are "used for such purposes as the building and maintenance of meetinghouses, temples, and other facilities, as well as for the partial support of the missionary, educational, and Welfare programs of the Church." 72Dino (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According this this WaPo story that the article currently uses as a cite, "The couple gave away $7 million in charitable contributions over the past two years, including at least $4.1 million to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This CSM story and This Business Week story have more detail on where the rest went.  This 2005 BG story has some detail on the 1999–2005 period: "Governor Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann, have donated nearly $2.9 million to more than 40 healthcare groups, schools, and other charitable organizations since 1999, including $2.2 million to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  So I think it's fair to say that a majority, but not all, of his giving is to the LDS Church.  As for there being no poor Mormons, that's just Maher being provocative/ignorant.  The church has poor converts from various regions of the world – see this NYT piece for example.  And the Great Recession can, and has, put people into financial straits who need assistance from the LDS social welfare system.  As to your point about not all tithings going to charity, that's quite true, but the U.S. tax code doesn't make these kind of distinctions.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Conversion of his dead father-in-law
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)
 * Actually more of a baptism I suspect - but since Mormons do it routinely for milllions of ancestors, really of remarkably trivial significance in this BLP. And I daresay most people would not find praying for the dead to be "despicable" or "disrespectful." Collect (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely irrelevant to this article, IMHO. HiLo48 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * IP, when accompanied by sourcing indicating a strong impact on Mitt's life, even such a circumstance would be deemed more than peripheral and could be included, but failing that, not, IMO. (Btw I'm conversant, if only somewhat, with "accepted" LDS eschatology and conversion is not quite the most accurately descriptive word, in this context, I believe. I.e., per baptism for the dead, the LDS believe that this sacrament [they term it an ordinance] becomes available for acceptance by the spirit of the ancestor in the afterlife, pre-resurrection, but only if that relative chooses to do so. (Oh, and since the LDS also believe in a form of nearly universal salvation in any case, whether the soul of the ancestor accepts the sacrament or not, Mormons believe the individual will be resurrected and "saved" from damnation in any case.) For whatever such factoids might be worth to you. )--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This quote useful for this page...
[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&#39;s secret garden (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Collapsible lineage table
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; Kennedy family and John F. Kennedy;...but, then, there's also eg Family of Barack Obama and Barack Obama).

--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagreee and note that the "genealogy" in BLPs is generally disfavoured, especially when they are "selected" ones in the first place, including ones intended to show specific relationships between fairly distant cousins and the like, and intended primarily to show such relationships (which is textbook SYNTH at best). The example you now proffer is simply trivia.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, the three charts linked to (Princess Diana's, Obama's, JFK's) plus the one shown (Romney's) all contain zero cousins but rather are composed of the respective indiv.s' ancestries. (Also, the various ancestries are pertinent to e/g the biographies of the four indiv.s mentioned; and, in Romney's case, is reliably sourced to an eminent genealogist.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We already have "notable relations" which is highly duplicative of this new bit of trivia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We already have a family tree in the Romney family article, I don't see as how this adds anything that that article, and it's inappropriate for this article.  The Romney family is not nearly as famous as the Kennedy family, and the U.S. doesn't have a peerage system like Britain does.  Your examples aren't too convincing anyway, as neither the JFK nor Princess Diana article is GA much less FA and both have big patches of unreferenced material.   Wasted Time R (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A family tree of notable relations (including cousins) is of course distinct from a x-generations pedigree chart (usually including absolutely zero cousins), resulting in charts for e/g the Kennedy family and the Obama family being distinct from the chart on Wikipedia for the ancestries of Michelle Obama (Family of Barack Obama) and of Lady Di (Diana, Princess of Wales). These latter show the 2-to-the-n-power (n, the no. of generations back: or, obv. 2x2x2x2...) number of progenitors of the individual in question: in the cited cases: either the commoner-turned-princess, albeit one whose paternal line are all earls, or of the first African-American first lady of the United States.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2^n family trees just present a bunch of insignificant names and seem a violation of WP:NOTADIR to me. And the Family of Barack Obama article is full of meaningless relationships like Obama being the 21st cousin 3 times removed of Elvis Presley, which is just the kind of junk we're trying to avoid here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My primary point is that anyone who deletes such charts as that of Mitt's, Michelle's or Lady Di's, citing "obscure cousins" hasn't even looked at the tables, since, by their nature, no relations of cousinage are indiciated within them whatsoever. (As to your bit about the O. family article: Indeed, many sources cite the relationship between whatever current US Presidents (or else the living British monarch) with X or Y icon such as Elvis. Does such reporting establish notability? I would argue so, if only per the considerations touched on w/i the essay wp:IPC. (Btw, the number of indiv.s in a whatever-number-generation pedigree chart would appear to be to take whatever factor of 2 and then subtract one. Or something like that.))--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Try WP:AGF -- my personal family tree has over 600 "obscure cousins" in it - and I would never dream of placing it, or any similar "family tree", into any Wikipedia article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK an individual descendent&thinsp;-&thinsp;up pedigree chart (depicting one's "ncestors from one generation to the next[.... ...C]orruption of the French "pied de grue" or crane's foot, because[...]each split[...]resemble[s] the thin leg and foot of a crane"--- WIKIPEDIA ) is distinct from a pair of ancestors&thinsp;-&thinsp;down family tree ("with the oldest generations at the top and the newer generations at the bottom"--- WIKIPEDIA ). Both are useful, the latter to show notable relations incl. cuzzes, the former for such things as to show a notable family's premiere individual's direct ancestry.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Usurpator
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)


 * Never heard of either, nor do I see any relevance to this article. Please explain. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC


 * What about usurper as crowds vox god. 99.90.197.87 (talk)

Prep school years
"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&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney was technically registered as a Democrat for a brief time
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.
 * "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent. In the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas."

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)
 * Being from Massachusetts, I know it is technically true that he was a Democrat for a fleeting amount of time between picking his ballot up and leaving the polling place, but it's far too trivial to include.  Hot Stop  06:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A technicality like this is meaningless. In any open or semi-open primary, a certain percentage of people cross party lines to vote in the other primary, sometimes because they are genuinely interested, sometimes because they want to pick the least-bad opponent in case their side loses, sometimes to cause trouble (2008's Operation Chaos, this year's Operation Hilarity).  This doesn't mean those people who cross are actually members of the other party, even for a day.  The important point is what the article already states: "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent.[39]"  And finally, your underlying presumption is incorrect: "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."  See WP:NOTADIR #8.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can concede the point that as a matter of general election politics, where people can vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation, that a factoid like this is superfluous to the article. However, I respectfully disagree to the assertion that such a fact is 'meaningless.' In primary politics, seemingly unimportant facts like this become the basis for voters to draw conclusions to judge a fickle matter like party loyalty especially when all other qualities or merits being relatively equal. K♪monkey @('_' )@ Talk⇉✌  15:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's been almost no coverage of this. Adding this per your reasoning is a clear WP:NPOV issue.  Hot Stop   15:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be a WP:NPOV if and only if the language used to convey the fact were in someway making out this to be a big issue. The notability of Mitt Romney allows for the inclusion of this since it cannot be claim a trivial issue; "coverage" is not the prerequisite WP:NOT. At issue is the factual claim of the article as it is written now:
 * "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent.
 * If in fact his registration had technically changed because of the Massachusetts' law to Democratic affiliation in 1992, then it would be untrue to allow the article to stand as is when it seems uncontested that Romney's party affiliation in fact did change. I would propose this change: "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." K♪monkey @('_' )@ Talk⇉✌  15:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're losing the forest for the trees. The article makes clear in two places that he was an Independent for many years before becoming a Republican, and makes clear in one place that he voted for Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic primaries.  That's what's important, not some obscure election legality that says he was a Democrat for two minutes between signing form #1 and form #2.  There are some well-known Republican presidential candidates who really were Democrats once – Ronald Reagan and Rudy Giuliani come to mind – but Mitt Romney is not one of them.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider changing the wording of the current article. It is wrong in either case. I presented a revised statement that does not emphasize the former 'Democratic' affiliation but implies it and passes as a true statement. Consider the merit of the edit and don't assume I playing the partisan games here. Perhaps as a disclaimer I should say that I attended a wikipedia event for the National Archives located at the Reagan Presidential library. On the same note, I care about the accuracy of the statements in wikipedia. I heard through hearsay that Romney was a former democrat which piqued my interest to do some research; unless the statement is corrected, the article currently written implies Romney was technically (absolutely) an Independent before switching to Republican which is a false statement. K♪monkey @('_' )@ Talk⇉✌  01:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look again at the Buzzfeed piece. Romney was an Independent from August 31, 1976, to March 10, 1992.  He was a "Democrat" for several minutes on March 10, 1992.  Immediately after voting for Tsongas, he signs the unenrollment form, when he becomes an Independent again.  He stays an Independent for another year and a half, until October 19, 1993, when he changes his registration to Republican, which he remains to this day.  The article as it reads is correct.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Compare these two statements:
 * Statement (1): "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent. In the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas."
 * Statement (2): "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."

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)
 * A two-minute electoral obscurity that Romney wasn't even aware of has no place in the article. There are approximations and simplifications throughout all the writing here, such as "Bain and Romney spent a year raising the $37 million in funds needed to start the new operation".  Well, actually, the amount wasn't $37 million, it was $36,629,312 or some figure like that, and the period wasn't a year, it was 12 months and 19 days, or something like that.  So these statements are "technically" false too.  But it doesn't matter, because we are focused on what is important.  What is important is that for at least 17 years, Romney self-identified and registered as an Independent, and for the 19 years since then, he has self-identified and registered as a Republican.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wasted Time R's assessment that "The article makes clear in two places that he was an Independent for many years before becoming a Republican, and makes clear in one place that he voted for Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic primaries. That's what's important, not some obscure election legality that says he was a Democrat for two minutes between signing form #1 and form #2. There are some well-known Republican presidential candidates who really were Democrats once – Ronald Reagan and Rudy Giuliani come to mind – but Mitt Romney is not one of them." However, I would not be opposed to a minor change in phrasing, along the lines suggested by Kjmonkey, in order to keep the article factually correct. Perhaps: "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. By the time of Romney's own run for the Senate in 1994, he had come to align himself ...." Or some such. Dezastru (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is my proposed change taking Dezastru's suggestion into consideration:
 * "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 briefly became de jure a Democrat. By the 1994 U.S. Senate race, Romney aligned himself with Republican Massachusetts Governor..." K♪monkey @('_' )@ <font color="Silver">Talk⇉✌  05:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This change implies that he was a Democrat from the time of voting for Tsongas to 1994. Not true!  Again, here is the timeline:
 * August 31, 1976 – March 10, 1992: registered Independent
 * two minutes during March 10, 1992: technically a Democrat while in act of voting in their primary
 * March 10, 1992 – October 19, 1993: registered Independent
 * October 19, 1993 – present: registered Republican
 * I still think the article can stand as it is, but your "Statement (2)" above – if you substitute "momentary" for "brief" – is much better than this latest proposal. Also note there is still no consensus for including this at all – there are two opposed (myself and Hot Stop) and two in favor (you and Dezastru).  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hot Stop has not chimed in since; of course that does not mean Hot Stop agrees with the additional rationales I have provided so Hot Stop's measured views on the body of my argument for modifying statement (1) would help wrap up this matter. The point that I originally raised, as shown by the title of this talk section, was that Romney was technically a Democrat for a brief time not that he was a de facto Democrat. It is surprising to me that you acknowledge that Romney was 'momentarily' a Democrat yet feel to stand firm with the current article text that colors the accuracy of the history. It is unfortunate we cannot simply make a small change to the text as I have proposed to make the Mitt Romney article as accurate as possible. To me it seems to affirm that "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent" would be committing the bias of omission. We can use the term  'momentarily'  as you suggest to read as  'momentarily became de jure'  so that we can concisely capture the sense that Romney became a Democrat in the eyes of State law and not necessarily because he agreed with the Democratic party platform that Tsongas espoused. However, to make no changes to the article in light of this new information is to deprive the wiki readers of political history of greater depth of information. K♪monkey @(<font color="Dark Goldenrod2">'_' )@ <font color="Silver">Talk⇉✌  11:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles deprive readers of greater depths of information all the time. That's what they are supposed to do, summarize information!  The important is kept in, the unimportant is left out.  I fully agree with Hot Spot's original statement on this: "it is technically true that he was a Democrat for a fleeting amount of time between picking his ballot up and leaving the polling place, but it's far too trivial to include."   Wasted Time R (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If I was proposing a separate statement affirming that Romney was a Democrat, then Hot Spot would have grounds that the information was too trivial to include and created undue weight that could be seen as violating NPOV. My response to Hot Spot was the statement in the article was untrue as written and could be made true by adding a qualifier. While I agree that wikipedia articles should be written in such a way as to not overwhelm the reader by using concise prose and summaries, I do not agree with the premise that the articles must sacrifice accuracy to maintain accessibility. In fact, all wiki articles go through different developments and stages like stubs, C rated, good articles, featured, etc. The article quality improves with additional information, not by keeping simplified statements and ignoring new sources. And the issue here is not about adding text to the article that would make it unwieldy; the proposed change is only a few more words. The new source in this case presents new information and makes a bold claim as evidence by the article's title, "Mitt Romney Was A Democrat;" it is not even controversial as Romney's aides confirmed it was true in the article. However, the current wiki article implies that Romney was always an Independent or Non-affiliated voter. Again, to continue to maintain that Romney was always an Independent before turning Republican in the face of the contrary claim of the Buzzfeed article and dismiss the claim as trivial is not appropriate. K♪monkey @(<font color="Dark Goldenrod2">'_' )@ <font color="Silver">Talk⇉✌  12:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I must admit, I haven't followed this discussion all to closely, but I still don't support saying he's a Democrat as sources haven't been provided (except the buzzfeed article) highlighting this. Would we also say he was a Republican each time he voted in their primary?  <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   15:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not an apples-to-apples comparison to use the hypothetical of Romney voting in Republican primary. The Massachusett law that applied in this case, before it was changed in 2004, formally enrolled him into the Democratic party. Had he voted in the Democratic primary after 2004, or the Republican primary for that matter, we could not in fact style Romney as either Democrat/Republican solely by his vote. Interestingly, the Buzzfeed article doesn't seem to load at the moment but interested editors can refer to this Google cached version of the source. Should we conveniently ignore the source when it corroborates the merit of editing  'Statement (1)'  that is false as currently constructed? The Buzzfeed article actually is a tertiary source in this matter; the primary source in this case would be the poll workers who handled Romney's primary ballot and subsequent unenrollment and the secondary source is the Romney aide mentioned in the article that affirmed Romney's previous Democratic affiliation. Additional sources would be welcomed as contributions from other editors but not necessary to address the claim in the current wiki article that Romney was an Independent regardless of that inconvenient legal episode in this life. The wiki article should reflect this fact; the article does not need to be in conformity with the official Romney presidential campaign storyline. Otherwise, how could we maintain that this wikipedia article as the work of editors using neutral language? Such omission then becomes de facto biased and not neutral. K♪monkey @(<font color="Dark Goldenrod2">'_' )@ <font color="Silver">Talk⇉✌  19:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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 @(<font color="Dark Goldenrod2">'_' )@ <font color="Silver">Talk⇉✌  22:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording at the outset of this discussion -- "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, [Romney] was registered as an Independent" -- is appropriate and should remain. This Tsongas thing changing his status to being a Democrat for a few minutes is a hypertechnicality shouldn't be treated as a true party affiliation.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  21:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a non-important technicality as WastedTimeR has shown quite well. I pray that this is not a sign of the future discusions yet to be had on this article now that the presidential season is fully underway.  Arzel (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is completely accurate as written. Romney was an Independent until the time he decided to run in the 1994 Senate race, and during that time as an Independent he voted in a Democratic primary for Tsongas.  These two facts are the important ones, they have been publicly known for years, and this article has included them for years.   The only new thing that the Buzzfeed piece came up with is an obscure technicality about what happened on the day he voted in the Democratic primary.  It is completely unimportant.  In terms of political fallout, whether Romney's being an Independent for so many years, and voting for Tsongas during that time, hurts him with conservatives or helps him with moderates is the same regardless of what kind of election day mechanism was in place to allow Independents to vote in party primaries.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:35, 26 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 agree with Wasted Time R: it's fine as written. This technicality is obscure and irrelevant, and probably applies to lots of people in states with open primaries.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the closed primary system for many reasons, including that it's pure and simple. But I think there's a big difference between Romney voting once in a Democratic primary with his affiliation technically and briefly changing because of it and someone who instead actually and willingly switches parties (or to an actual party). It's probably still worth mentioning his Tsongas vote, but not getting lost in party affiliation technicalities. My proposal would be to instead mention that the primary was open by substituting in what I have placed in brackets: "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent. In [Massachusetts' 1992 open presidential primary], he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas." —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful about saying that, because Massachusetts didn't have a true open primary back then. Per this Boston Globe article abstract: "Though registered Democrats cannot vote in the Republican primary, unenrolled voters may do so."  It was probably semi-closed or some term like that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 27 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.
 * Original article text: "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent. In the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas."

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 @(<font color="Dark Goldenrod2">'_' )@ <font color="Silver">Talk⇉✌  08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * no K♪monkey @(<font color="Dark Goldenrod2">'_' )@ <font color="Silver">Talk⇉✌
 * yes Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes North8000 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Arzel (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes --PnakoticInquisitortalk 23:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * yes K♪monkey @(<font color="Dark Goldenrod2">'_' )@ <font color="Silver">Talk⇉✌
 * okay with but it may get challenged as not a WP:RS when article goes up for FAC soon ... in which case it will get pulled out Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, pointless & questionable reliability of source Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak yes But #1 is preferable North8000 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Agree with F&H Arzel (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Yes, as the source isn't the best --PnakoticInquisitortalk 23:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * yes K♪monkey @(<font color="Dark Goldenrod2">'_' )@ <font color="Silver">Talk⇉✌
 * no  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, undue weight to trivial & meaningless hiccup. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No  Many problems. Deceptive at best.   North8000 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No Arzel (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, very undue since meaningless technicality. --PnakoticInquisitortalk 23:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * yes K♪monkey @(<font color="Dark Goldenrod2">'_' )@ <font color="Silver">Talk⇉✌
 * no and your italics should be removed, the text has to stand on its own Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, as #3, but more so. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No Numerous problems.  Deceptive at best.  North8000 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No Arzel (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, very undue since meaningless technicality. --PnakoticInquisitortalk 23:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't give up, I'll give you that. #3 and #4 have already been opposed above by myself, Hot Spot, Milowent, Arzel, North8000, Coemgenus, and Sgt. R.K. Blue, with only one or two editors in favor of them.  You're going to keep asking and asking and hope people get tired of the discussion and go away?    Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For #4, there is a difference; I added the word registered as agreement with North8000#top's point. Frankly, I don't submit too many edits to wiki articles and this proposed edit here seemed clear cut to me. But as yourself and the other editors that follow the discussion on the Mitt Romney article has shown me, I can't necessarily assume something is clear cut. In any case, as you have seen the care I have put into addressing objections and submitting revised proposals, I'd like to have the feeling that the editors who choose to comment have at given some consideration to what was proposed and not rush to pass judgment like some of these laws that Congress passes nowadays without reading. K♪monkey @(<font color="Dark Goldenrod2">'_' )@ <font color="Silver">Talk⇉✌  17:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The entire debate is ridiculous nit-picking, apparently – based on several comments in the discussionr – being pushed for political reasons. Insisting on inclusion of this minor factoid in an encyclopedia biography is equivalent to insisting – in the name of "complete accuracy" – that a biographical statement such as "he was raised in Bloomfield, Michigan" be changed to read "he was raised in Bloomfield, Michigan, except for a one-month period in summer 1956 when the family lived in a hotel in Troy, Michigan, during renovations to their house". Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a valid point in your example that the exception, if true, would not be significant unless we had information (perhaps in an autobiography) that shows this one-month period was when he had discovered he wanted to be a politician. Likewise, this registered Democrat business would seem out of place in the article except for it adds depth to the current text and explains the legal implication arising from Romney's vote in the Democratic primary. Perhaps someone could gather from this that Romney was adamantly independent and would not entertain being registered as a Democrat for more than a minute. K♪monkey @(<font color="Dark Goldenrod2">'_' )@ <font color="Silver">Talk⇉✌  17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an inaccurate analogy. If it was "he never left Bloomfield, Michigan until age so and so" and it was left out that he did in fact leave Michigan then it would be analogous.  The common understanding of 'raised' does not indicate the person never left the confines of that location during their entire early life.  The analogy is absurd.  I understand trying to use the analogy as the fact does not mean anything and to add it does not add anything to the article (therefore may seem absurd itself).  However, the point is that the factoid makes the current statement false, not that the factoid is important.76.109.170.158 (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that Romney was a registered independant who voted democrat, and that his state's rules meant that he was at that time a democrat, are absolutely notable enough for inclusion in the article. To omit this notable piece of information would be unencyclopedic. — GabeMc (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of that is already in the article. Why is the minor technicality, that has no actual impact, of extreme importance? Arzel (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And where in state law does it declare that somebody who takes a Democrat ballot in a primary IS a Democrat? North8000 (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What does impact have to do with this discussion? I think everyone is missing the point that the statement as it was is inaccurate.  If you're going to say he was a registered independent until x date even though he was not, for however briefly, you're making a false statement.  Obviously it's a ridiculous rule and doesn't (read: shouldn't) mean anything to anyone who may or may not vote in elections, but that's not the point.  The point is it makes the statement currently there false.  I say remove the entire part about him being an independent if no one agrees with putting in (in some form) the caveat that it's technically inaccurate. 76.109.170.158 (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement is true. We don't know how many Republican or Democratic primaries he may have voted in between August 1976 and October 1993, but in every case he maintained his status as an Independent.  The technical-electoral mechanism by which this happened is not important, what's important is that he wanted to stay an Independent.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 3 May 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)
 * Adding that he was a Dem is WP:UNDUE per Wasted Time R.– Lionel (talk) 06:01, 7 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)


 * The Constitution makes no statements at all about "political parties" nor is anyone required in any way to be a member of any "political party." The SCOTUS has never made any such rulings about being a member of a "political party."  And many states have "open primaries" where anyone of any party may vote in any single primary.  Sorry -- too many wrong claims to simply sit there unchallenged. Collect (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The US constitution (to which I assume you are referring) is largely irrelevant to this issue, as is SCOTUS. The state in which Romney actually voted has laws/rules that define anyone who votes for a democrat as a democrat, at least at the time of the vote. Its really that simple. — GabeMc (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee
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)
 * Such a GOPNat'lCommittee-as-arbiter-of-status-in-the-race criterion would surely be impressive, Wasted Time R ...if there could found any source other than Mssrs. Gingrich and Paul and their respective families that did not believe Romney the presumptive Republican nominee as of April 10. I.e., the RNC's mere declination to make a positive statement about Romney's status until Gingrich bowed does not mean Romney's status of presumptiveness, as it were, didn't exist prior to this anticlimax. When Santorum suspended his campaign the RNC knew--not through some kind of secret knowledge or privileged information but only because everybody else did who was watching the race--Romney was at that point the presumptive nominee; yet, the RNC's objective was and is different than that of a news organization or especially of a tertiary source such as an encyclopedia: not simply reporting unvarnished truth but rather to quote-unquote respect the process (read as "respect the fact that a former Speaker was still 'in the race' [sic]").
 * RealClearPolitics: ‎April 10, 2012‎ ... departure from the race was indeed good news for Romney, who now faces only token opposition from Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul on his way to locking up the Republican nomination. But there was also some worrying news for the now-presumptive nominee.
 * NYT: With Rick Santorum's departure from the race, Mitt Romney has been all but assured the Republican nomination. ... The presumptive nominee, Mr. Romney ended March with $10 million in cash.
 * NYT: He suspended his campaign this week, but not before doing incalculable damage to the Republican brand and to the party's presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney
 * BBC: Santorum has ended his bid for the White House, leaving Mitt Romney as the presumptive nominee.
 * TheEconomist: April 14, 2012 Rick Santorum Quits, And the General Election Begins ... That an obscure former senator with wildly right-wing views, who lost his last reelection campaign by 18 points, could give Mr Romney such a run for his money may say more about the presumptive nominee than it does about Mr Santorum.
 * Time: April 17, 2012 ... the presumptive nominee and presumptive nominee's spouse talked
 * Newsweek/DailyBeast: April 12, 2012 Gas prices are up, jobs numbers are stalled—bad news for Main Street, good for the presumptive nominee. But to win, Romney must....
 * USNews&WorldReport: Santorum's exit leaves Romney with two remaining opponents--former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas--but neither is considered much of a threat for the nomination. GOP strategists say Romney needs to focus now on five objectives as the presumptive nominee
 * Xinhua/Peoples(RepublicofChina's)Daily: Santorum's announcement to quit his presidential race Tuesday effectively ends the Republican nomination contest and makes his leading rival Romney the presumptive nominee.
 * PBSNewsHour: Rick Santorum's exit from the Republican race made Romney the party's presumptive nominee.
 * Politico: April 11, 2012 ... As for the next step as the presumptive nominee, Romney said....
 * Nat'lJournal: April 11, 2012 Romney Finally Gets His Title: Presumptive Republican Nominee: Santorum's exit clears the path
 * AssocPress: Tuesday marked Day One, in essence, of the contest between the two virtually certain nominees, Republican Mitt Romney and Democratic President Barack Obama. Rick Santorum's departure removed the last meaningful bump ... The presumptive nominee attacked Obama with gusto Tuesday
 * AssocPress: Santorum abandoned his GOP bid on April 10[.... ]That exit made Romney the presumptive nominee.
 * Slate: Santorum announced Tuesday that he is suspending his presidential campaign, a decision that cements Mitt Romney's status as the Republican Party's presumptive nominee.
 * NYT: April 11, 2012 ... Santorum is a party crasher. He has helped crash the Republican Party into a wall of public resentment. He suspended his campaign this week, but not before doing incalculable damage to the Republican brand and to the party’s presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney.
 * WSJ: Mr. Santorum's departure from the race leaves Mr. Romney the party's presumptive nominee.
 * Bloomberg/BusinessWeek: emerged as the presumptive nominee after his main challenger, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, announced April 10
 * Nat'lReview: April 11, 2012 The Presumptive Nominee ...
 * WaPo: April 10, 2012 ... While few expect Romney, the presumptive nominee, to choose Santorum
 * ABCNews: Rick Santorum called it quits Tuesday, leaving Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul still in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.[ ... ]So, the campaigning goes on, with Romney the presumptive nominee.
 * CBSNews: April 12, 2012 11:58 AM How Mitt Romney Became the Presumptive Nominee ...
 * LATimes: Santorum's decision to leave the Republican presidential race boosted two candidacies: Mitt Romney was spared two more weeks of struggle before he could be crowned the presumptive nominee even as Santorum set the stage for a future run
 * --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can also find lots of news stories that he was the presumptive nominee before April 10. And lots of news stories that he was after Super Tuesday in early March.  The point is to rely upon something at least semi-official rather than picking and choosing among sometimes loosely worded news stories.  In any case, once he has the delegates won to clinch the nomination, the article can state that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a nuance being missed via the argument that some people heck even back in e/g 2010 or 2009 presumed Romney would become the nominee. Going out of the way to lend much credence to a super minority viewpoint is not what is meant by balance and neutrality. People come to Wikipedia to find out the facts (i/e, events as interpreted by the sources). Which means that whereas a supposed lock within gambling isn't one, nonetheless, when all the cards left in the deck are red ones and that's what you've "bet" will be delt, that is a verifiable lock. So, while what some may call a lock isn't really one, still there is such a thing as the valid analysis of a genuine lock--such as by all competent observers. Not to be repetative, but...to be repetitive...notwithstanding the courtesy lull afforded the former Speaker, Romney had sewn up the nomination when the former Senator for Penn. threw in his towel--before the RNC press release. And it's more than the mere predominance of the sources, it's all the sources which acknowledge Santorum the last rival that stood with a shot and, per these sources, the article should reflect precisely that. After the fat lady sings, sure, the ink of the ecstatic review by the opera critic in the opera magazine might still be wet at the printers, but still: she's sung.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul's candidacy prevents "presumptive nominee" label
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)
 * No. And Paul dropped out (or however he wants to word it) anyway  <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   21:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cmt - The question was/is Whether someone well on his way to gaining the needed [1,144] delegates for the nod should be termed the "likely," the "de facto," or the "presumptive" R. nominee (etc.), How WP should make whatever determination, and Why WP should use whatever methodology chosen to do so.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Bullying episode BLP issue?
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)
 * It's well sourced. Romney has even responded to it and is not denying it.  I don't see an issue with covering it.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Romney is denying any recollection of this specific incident. He gave a politician's generic "if anyone was offended" sort of apology today: "Back in high school, I did some dumb things, and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that" and "I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school, and some might have gone too far, and for that I apologize" and "as to the teasing or the taunts that go on in high school, that’s a long time ago. For me, that’s about 48 years ago. Again, if there’s anything I said that is offensive to someone, I certainly am sorry for that, very deeply sorry for that."
 * It does seem very curious that 5 classmates interviewed by the Washington Post vividly recalled this particular incident, yet Romney has no memory of it. Dezastru (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Many reliable sources have covered it, and after it was first revealed, as the LA Times article said, Romney then apologized for his behavior in high school. There are credible witnesses, and a proper investigation was done.  D r e a m Focus  22:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It may violate a few things from, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and WP:BLPGROUP. Just being well sourced is not the only critieria we would use to rule out a BLP issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, this does seem to be a pretty quick draw on current events. No one wants to wait even a few days to see how this plays out and what references can be found to address this in a more neutral manner?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see as how either of those things apply here. What specific thing do you think we are violating?  I think its rather neutral now.  We report what the sources all say.  If we could find a transcript of the radio interview he made his apology on, or if someone wants to listen to all of that which I believe the LA Times article links to in it, that might be some good material to quote him from.   D r e a m Focus  22:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just the way the prose was written seems a bit odd. It doesn't appear the story from the Washington Post is an opinion piece but a straight political story so attribution to the paper is not needed. If it were opinion you would attribute to the author and paper. But oddly why bother mentioning this if you don't use all the facts that give this coverage in the article context and clear notablitlity for inclusion. The classmates are all named and this at least should be mentioned beyond the fact that the story is "corroborated by all five living witnesses of the attack", but they all have all openly, come forward. Don't need names, but it would be more accurate to at least mention the name of the classmate who was attacked. Many of the inncidents are in raltionship to Romney's views on Homosexuality and yet these are just buried in his childhood section. Should this go elswhere, be expanded, more accurate and with proper context.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How does the Rand Paul article handle the Aqua Buddha allegation? That's a good comparable in my mind. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure that's a good example at all, these are multiple actions that seem to center around reaction to his percpetion of another's sexuality.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see one main action, the hair cut, which is getting the most press. And like Aqua Buddha, it's a story from school years that isn't verified with concrete proof, that the candidate isn't actively denying. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you don't like how its written, then rewrite it. Its current state is better than having nothing at all.   D r e a m Focus  07:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it belongs in the article, but it should be presented as fact, without all the in-text atribution, along with Romney's later don't remember/apologize anyway response. Further detail can be given in a Note.  I've started doing this, will return to it after attending to FAC responses.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on articles there is little doubt this is fact..however..I think there is too much story to contain on this page. I think this should be made into a small 3 line paragraph with a link to a separate page where it can be explored and documented in detail.  There will be fall out.Pbmaise (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have decided to start on the separate page and call it Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident

Pbmaise (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I added one line to the article and that is simply a link to the new page in the see also. Expect the page to be taken down almost immediately by vandals that don't want facts to be reported. Facts and reality is so dang inconvenient.Pbmaise (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a Note to the main article that gives more details of the episode and gives Romney's quote. I think this is sufficient for this article.  I don't expect Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident to survive AfD, but we'll see.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The family has denied the incident. Let me ask a silly question - has anyone outside of the Washington Post independently confirmed that the incident even happened?  Every source I have read that doesn't just regurgitate the Post is some version of "I don't remember anything like that". --B (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The family has denied the incident? Or is it that they say they have no knowledge of the incident? Not the same thing. If you were a teenage guy being bullied at school for being perceived, among other things, as being effeminate, would you tell your sisters? — What are the sources you have read? David Weigel opines in Slate on the criticism of the WaPo reporting. Dezastru (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No ... Slate takes issue with one quote - confusion about whether the alleged victim was a boarder or a day student. I have no idea whether that was originally mentioned by the Washington Post story - the Washington Post story has been changed.  That seems like a strange thing for ABC to single out if it wasn't in the story at some point. --B (talk) 14:12, 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)
 * His sister states if it did happen he wouldn't have told her.   D r e a m Focus  15:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Arzel, what exactly did the WaPo get wrong? Dezastru (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This source explains part of what they did wrong. Arzel (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no need to be hasty. Given the BLP concerns, and given that the Post has already corrected their initial account once, wouldn't it be better to wait and see before including anything in the main article? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that major of an error. The rest of it seems valid.  And the Wikipedia rules clearly state that if there is an active controversy going on, it should be included in the article.   D r e a m Focus  16:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is that policy? Arzel (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We need to determine that to mention in the article, and then link to the main article about this which has more detail, Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident.  D r e a m Focus  16:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That article is likely to be deleted. As for mention in this article, I think this is comparable to Obama's admission of marijuana use in high school. Romney has admitted to participating in "hijinks and pranks", and said that "some might have gone too far". We can say as much, and note very briefly that it was much later reported that he was accused of one particular incident, but does not remember it. It is certainly no BLP issue to accurately report that someone was accused of something, without drawing a conclusion as to whether they did what was claimed. bd2412  T 17:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is selecting one of the more politically fashionable /acceptable things that Obama did, whereas what it is alleging that Romney did is not. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether any famous person's high school behavior is fashionable or acceptable is beside the point. This is a biography. The question is, in detailing the subject's high school life, do we briefly mention his having engaged in pranks and hijinks, once that assertion has been widely reported. I think the answer would be the same for any person who generates this level of interest, irrespective of political affiliation. bd2412  T 17:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with Obama. I regularly check Google news to find interesting stories to read, and came across this, and made certain something was in the article about it.  Its not politically motivated.  If you see something that should be in the Obama article, discuss it on that talk page, it having nothing to do with the situation here.   D r e a m Focus  17:46, 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)
 * North, that's a sentence fragment. I don't understand your point. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant that per the standards of wp:npov (especially wp:undue) and the above coverage numbers, inclusion of this story in the top level Romney article would be a massive wp:npov / wp:undue violation. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, but don't you think that when someone chooses to run for President of the US, the standards change? What might be undue in a normal BLP for, say, an athlete, artist, author or even former president (I agree such a story about Carter, Clinton or the Bushes would be undue), might not be undue at all for someone seeking this office.  In particular, in this case we're talking about a story that goes to character, a personal aspect which has a lot of relevance to someone learning about a presidential candidate.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not if we were trying to be a legitimate encyclopedia and not some sort of 'voting guide'.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Born2, we're blending a bunch of different standards in the above discussion. I think that the most relevant ones here are to try to be an encyclopedia, and an objective one, and the wikipedia standards that attempt to accomplish that. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Update
Source: Washington Post. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, yes, but Romney won't actually be charged with anything, so how relevant is that to him? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Romney was the governor's son, so how is that relevant to him?
 * FWIW, Horowitz's Post article implied that Cranbrook expelled a student over smoking a cigarette. Was smoking worse than bullying? Dezastru (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comparing a news story to his family lineage is apples and oranges. The school expelling a student for smoking a cigarette is also not relevant to Romney, and a comparison of those two instances is WP:SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point I don't believe there is consensus for inclusion of the material. It certainly has not been established as fact and sources seem to be correcting themselves on the issue. It would reasonable to exclude on the basis that the article subject has yet to affirm or deny, but simply does not remember. Because of the heated issues surrounding it and the fact that it is very much election related IF consensus does turn towards incluion I feel it is best kept in the election 2012 section. It has real contxt there IF, and only IF it is dealt with in a neutral manner. I think we need to really discuss this out before it is returned.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that I'm aware of that this alleged incident was ever reported to school officials at the time. I'm pretty sure that even in 2012, there's no punishment for incidents that school officials don't even know about.  So I don't see the relevance of a comparison. --B (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cmt - A bit of apples and oranges, I think. Sure, even being alleged to be a gang member will get a student thrown out of many schools with no further questions asked. That said-- I happen to have Mark Oppenheimer (PhD, Yale)'s recent memoir that is greatly about Conn. prep school life on my bookshelf. If one reading of the iconic prog. pundit Michael Kinsley's, no fan of Mitt's, recollections of the antics at the various Cranbrooks of America, in my words, sort of sissy-baiting (see here?), then by the 1980s they were more so sexual-orientation-baiting, per Oppie's recollections. (Or your own recollections, if you went to h.s. in the eigties, I suppose.) In any case, Oppie gets thrown in the stream meandering through Loomis-Chaffee Acad. by a senior psuedonymously named Chas. Wainwright IV and Chas.'s henchmen. Oppie's dad, a lawyer, calls the dean and the dean declines to even suspend the seniors. Oppie has to talk his dad out of suing, eventually coming clean about Oppie's relentless campaign of sarcasm directed toward Charles in payback for his clever putdowns delivered at Oppie's expense a season earlier: both of which were tinged with the specter of sissy- and/or gay-baiting. (Regardless, I'm sure nothing of this sort goes on in high schools today.))  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&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Another Cranbrookite says this: "What happened in the dormitory tended to stay in the dormitory. Because of the potential for severe disciplinary action, people kept their mouths shut. ... In a dormitory full of teenage boys, that was the kind of setting where that sort of thing could happen from time to time. But if somebody asked me if I thought Mitt was a bully, the answer is a very definitive no. Mitt was not an intimidating person at all. He was skinny. He wasn't an athlete; he wasn't a leader of the class. At the time, he was not considered one of the top scholars at the school," [Sydney] Barthwell [Jr.] said, adding that he thinks the hair cutting incident is being blown out of proportion. "It was an unfortunate incident obviously, but I don't think that it would end up being as dastardly as it has been portrayed." RedBlackandBlue LINK--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)