Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 2

Positions
I edited the positions section to reflect the fact that Mitt Romney routinely flip flops and that his true positions, if in fact he holds any, are unknown.


 * I won't comment on flip flopping but we do need more transcripts of his speeches. His oratory style lingers on stories of people he has met and vague statements advocating morality without much policy to meet those ends. We need to make a list of his speeches and their transcripts to fully document his policy promotions. I think after that is accomplished the cognitive dissonance between editors of this article will decrease dramatically.GrEp 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are his list of speeches: http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/index. Here is my list of his speeches: http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Speeches myclob 12:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This page hs been subjected to heavy vandalism and should be protected, as Hillary Clinton's is, being a presidential candidate. To protect the integrity of the electoral system this artcle should be changed to protected status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.192.87 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

= Picture =

This article is hopeless without a picture, especially considering his status as a viable candidate for the 2008 elections. S. Stallings 02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs better picture
That Picture is terrible.


 * I don't agree. It may not be the best picture, but there are articles that don't have any pictures. Those should attract more focus. Also, please sign your comments!!! - Libertyville 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are saying that Romney is lucky to even have a picture... I disagree. Some say that he is the front runner of the republican party. Don't you think he needs a picture that accurately shows what he looks like? myclob 12:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of images
So, looking at the actual copyright notice from the mass.gov website (item 3), I question the claim that these images are meant to be in the public domain. That page seems to be referring to government documents and text of government proceedings that are part of the public record (it doesn't use the terms "public domain" like the image uploader claims (see, for example Image:RomneyFreeRally.jpg). In fact, the site's notice goes on to state that "With respect to material copyrighted by the Commonwealth, including the design, layout, and other features of Mass.Gov, the Commonwealth forbids any copying or use other than "fair use" under the Copyright Act." I don't think we have a fair use claim here since free images are easily obtained (anyone can take a free photo of him at a public event). I'm concerned as to the true copyright status of these images. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The status may not be that dire. The mass.gov terms of use page does go on to say the following:

"'Fair use' includes activities such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research, and other related activities"
 * A few references: Fair_use, and the non-policy essay Publicity_photos. See the general Copyright_issues. And if you or someone were to attempt to obtain permission, here's what to ask for: Example requests for permission.  It is quite possible that the photos are works of a Massachusetts employee, and are considered a public document under state law, and are freely available. - Yellowdesk 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah. Well, perhaps we should change the copyright tags on the images though, because I think the claim that the copyright holder has placed them into public domain is inaccurate. If anything, they simply fall into a fair use as government documents kind of scenario. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Best thing to do it to check with romney's office. Manytimes they release the copyrights to the images once they are posted on their public websites. Verbal or written permisson would suffice.--192.80.65.234 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There was an issue about this a while back. The copyright status was unclear so I called the Romney's office (phone number was on his website). I talked to a person that told me that all of the photos on their site were released into the public domain for unrestricted use. Should we have somebody else call to verify their status?--Redsox777 21:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See WP:COPYREQ & WP:ERP - I'm not sure verbal assurance from a staffer is sufficient here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If they release the copyright to the images, what is the issue?--Michael16G 13:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

= General Rules and plan =
 * 1) Sign in, so that we know your name.
 * 2) Organize discussion using the same organizational scheme as the article.
 * 3) Put new discussion topics at the bottom of each section.

=Archives=


 * /Archive1 - Through November 2006.

=Education=

In-state tuition bill
Someone editing from an IP address has been reverting my recent edit on the In-state tuition section. I'm up to two reverts, so I wanted others to weigh in. According to the source article in the Boston Globe the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation (according to the Globe a non-partisan, non-profit group that did not issue an opinion on the bill) conducted a study that showed that there would be a net gain to MA taxpayers if the bill were to become law. The article includes a quote from a group that opposed the bill (thus, making it partisan in this case): "Robert Casimiro -- who heads the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform, which opposes the bill -- disputed the conclusions and said he believes that the arrival of hundreds of undocumented immigrant students would have plenty of costs for the state, both at instititions of higher education and in general. "The classes I have attended [at Massasoit Community College] are filled to capacity; they would have to open new classes, and that costs money,"" Note the words "I believe." He did not offer any evidence to challenge the conclusions of the study.

My concerns with the edits by 65.96.5.43 are as follows:


 * 65.96.5.43 writes that the Mass Taxpayer Foundation "speculated" their conclusions. I disagree. They carried out a study based on several data sets. I think it is more accurate to say that they "found" or "concluded."
 * 65.96.5.43 writes that the Mass Coalition for Immigrant Reform "refuted" the other group's findings. However, as noted above, Casimiro only offered a few opinions as to why he believed the study to be wrong. He did not offer any evidence or prove that the report was wrong (see definition for refute).

Thanks.--Notmyrealname 03:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Casimiro doesn't refute anything. He just disagrees. It seems the word is now off the page. It should't return as it is not the correct term.--Michael16G 02:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why not mention the disagreement over the study? Its in the same article used to source the study.--Waverider5 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, newspapers like to quote from people on every side of an issue. But this is not a newspaper article. Casimiro has a reaction to the report. His group didn't put out a detailed study challenging the findings. He just offered an opinion. It seems that the Mass Taxpayer Foundation's report was a serious piece of research based on the experiences of the nine other states that have similar laws. I think there's a qualitative issue here. More importantly, Romney didn't dispute the report.--Notmyrealname 06:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Romney did dispute the findings of the report. He belives that the legislation would cost the state 15 million, the group though it would bring 5 million to the state. The report doesn't even consider other costs beyond education (i.e. health costs and public safety costs). You could make an argument that there is a "qualitative issue" with a study that doesn't take into account the entire secenario associated with the legislation. I am not going to have that debate on this page, but it is worth noting that others disagree with the conclusions. The groups report is after all an educated guess of the real effects of the legislation. Since the study's findings are not facts, but rather opinon/analysis, its worth noting the opinion/analysis of others on the study -- especially those of groups that are mentioned in the same source.--Waverider5 02:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the article, Romney hadn't read the report. I'm not sure how having illegal immigrants pay the in-state tuition rate would increase health and public safety costs. But, as you say, that is a debate for another time, and anyway, there should be no original research on Wikipedia in any case. The point is that Romney put forward an estimate (presumably based on research and a studies) of a $15 million cost, and MTF released a study forecasting a $5 million gain. I think that this is fair and balanced. There is no need to put out opinions of groups that haven't done serious studies. If we wanted to go down this path we could get quotes from a zillion advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. The Casimiro's quote in the source is of a different order of quality than that of the study.Notmyrealname 05:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... interesting debate taking place on this one. Its always intersting see different perspectives on issues. Not sure its our place to discredit either the study that the group produced or the other group. Since they were both quoted in a Boston Globe article, I will gve them the benifit of the doubt and call them both credable. Its important to show that Romney's analysis is disputed (by the study), but isnt it also wise to show that the study is also disputed? Nobody really knows what the cost/gain of this plan would be since it never happened. Neither side has a crystal ball.--Cliffhanger7 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this belong in "education"
"Romney served for 30 months as a Mormon missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in France." myclob 23:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Also:

"He is also an Eagle Scout." does not belong under Education. myclob 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It does belong in this section because the missionary work occured during this time frame. I would leave the paragraph as is, but consider changing the title of the section from "Education" to "Early Life."--Michael16G 02:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Education Initiatives
This section needs to be revamped. More than half of the section is related to initiatives that he proposed but that were never passed, and more space is taken up with his opinions about national policies that he can do nothing about. The relevant info are the metrics that show performance of education in the state during his tenure. Is it necessary to have a picture of him touting the $100 laptop proposal if nothing ever came of it? The casual reader would likely get the impression that this is something that actually happened.Notmyrealname 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

= and honorary chairman of the Commonwealth Political Action Committee. =

"He also serves as the chairman of the Republican Governors Association and honorary chairman of the Commonwealth Political Action Committee.[2]"

Does anyone care? I mean this is his pack, and so I would assume he serves as charman...

I propose, if you agree, you just remove... That's how it should always work. One person proposes, and another person seconds it, by romoving it... A third person can change it back, if they don't like it, unless you make a good argument here, to stop the 2nd person from doing it...

myclob 23:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"He also achieved prominence as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah"

Does someone ever "achieve prominence"? How does one go abotu achieving promince. Is that a sticker? It does not belong in this article. It is fluffy. If he achieved promince, he did it when he ran against Ted Kennedy. I don't think anyone really cares who runs the olympics. Sure there probably pretty cool people, but no one really "achieves prominence" from it. Take out prominince, or say that he achieved prominence by almost beating Kennedy...myclob 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Romney's work at Bain Capital and his turnarund at Bain & Company is more noteworth than his association with his PAC or the RGA at this point. Shouldnt this go in the lead section in place of the RGA and PAC references? Also, Romney never ran against John Kerry.--Michael16G 02:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should read "gained national attention." I don't think many people cared when he lost to Kennedy by 17 points, even if he had good poll numbers a few months before the election. And he didn't even run for office again for another 8 years. I had never heard of him before he became Governor, but the 2002 Olympics were an international scandal, and he keep them from going down in disgrace, so I guess it is appropriate to say that this the thing that got him noticed. I disagree with Michael16G that Bain should come before the RGA. It's a national political post, although it hasn't gone so well lately. George Bush made his money in baseball, but who cares?--Notmyrealname 18:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just read the intro over again. Should definitely mention Bain & Co. someplace here.Notmyrealname 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with this one. Intro should have his buisness expierence. He has spent more time at Bain Capital and Bain & Company than he has as governor and at the olympics combined.--Waverider5 02:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad we have some agreement. I think his buisness career deserves a sentence in the lead. Also, is Romney still the chair of the RGA? He obviously cant continue in the post since he will no longer be a sitting governor in a few weeks.--Michael16G 04:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence at the top about his buisness career:

"Romney is the former CEO of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm, and the co-founder of Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm."--Sierraonfire 01:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

= Put this under trivia or somewhere else... =

"At BCG Romney worked with recent MIT graduate and future Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[5]"

This is under business, but does not really mean anything to Romney's business career. Take it out and put it under trivia or somewhere else. myclob 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine. It fits into the time line. Its an interesing fact, and not distracting.--Michael16G 02:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with myclob. It has nothing to do with his business career. Belongs either in a trivia section or a "people he met who later became famous" section. Notmyrealname 18:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is an interesting fact but not really relevent to business. I like the idea of creating a trivia section and putting facts like this and others in it.--24.218.109.71 01:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the trivia idea but is there anything else to put in this section? We shouldn't create a trivia category for one fact. Any ideas for other trivia items?--Waverider5 02:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Netanyahu item needs some dates and other info to make any sense (wasn't Romney working as an intern?). "Recent MIT grad" doesn't make sense without a date.Notmyrealname 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone took away my triva section :( I have some more...Romney was named "Mitt" after a Chicago Bears quarterback of the same name... http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200506031216.asp myclob 22:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

=Encyclopedic style= There are portions of the article that read less like an encyclopedia and more like a promotional piece. While carefully guarding content for accuracy and NPOV by Romney supporters is fine, a review of the discussion page (here and in archive) lists numerous comments that much of the content sounds like campaign literature. Without addressing this the article risks reposting of the advertising banner reading:

"To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, this article or section may require cleanup. This article or section reads like an advertisement. Please discuss this issue on the talk page. Editing help is available. Blatant advertising can be marked for speedy deletion." 19:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is really well done. I really dont think there is anything that rises to the level of promotion. Everything is sourced, doubled sourced and triple sourced. It reads like a well written encyclopedia.


 * We should certianly remove any information sourced with campaign literature, but after reviewing the footnotes I dont think this is the case. There are a few offical press releases used. These are good for quotes and some info, but major facts and claims should be backed up with third party sources.


 * Other than that I have no compliants or concerns.--Megatropolis 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * -- it would be helpful to cite specifics and suggest (or) make changes. Otherwise we get into a silly battle of "is to" "is not".Notmyrealname 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with what both and Notmyrealname have said.  If someone would like help improving the article, I'm willing. Jerimee 00:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We should continue converting the links to footnotes and try to replace press releases with other sources where they are needed. Article is in good shape now, but will need to be carefully expanded when he decides to run for president.--Waverider5 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Per everybody's suggestions, I am working on the long, thankless task of converting the links to footnotes. The help of others is greatly appreciated.--Michael16G 15:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I will preface this by saying I rarily vote as I tend to be a cynic when it comes to the moral credibility of either main party, most tributary parties, and most politicians in general. To be arguing whether this page is more promotional or encyclopedic in comparison to the Obama page is outright farce. He's being referred to as the "Everyman", amongst numerous other promotional terms and phrases. The hypocrisy that this website brands itself neutral is insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 (talk • contribs) February 12, 2007

=Romney ever serve in the armed forces?= I was surprised to read no mention of Gov. Romney serving his country in the armed forces. Is this the case, or is it left out? He seems the age that he would have qualified for the draft, or could have enlisted for active service during he Vietnam war. Any info on this subject? 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Governor Romney finished his undergraduate degree from BYU in 1971, and received his MBA in 1975. The earliest he likely matriculated at HBS would have been September 1973. In this period U.S. deployment was at record high (troop reducation as a part of Vietnamization began in 1972, and the Selective Service draft did not end until end of year '73), this should have left him eligble for the draft. 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. What's your point? Looks like he didn't get drafted.--Sierraonfire 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

i would say he is on to a possible draft dodge despite Romney's swagger and posturing photo ops with men and women who DID serve. 68.163.211.56 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no info to back up any of these claims. Saying that "Despite the fact" he graduated college, he didnt sign up for the military, doesnt actually point out any information. The information on this topic is of signifigance is his draft status, as it was mandatory to sign up for the draft. It was not maditory to sign up for the army.--Megatropolis 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, even if you registered and were eligible for the Vietnam draft for the entire period of the war, your chances of being called were still only 53% (see http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm). It is highly speculative to say that since he didn't serve he must have been a draft dodger. - Adas, January 2007

With regard to the math (above) that Governor Romney's earliest matriclulation date at HBS would have been September 1973 is just plain incorrect. A closer reading of the article shows that he simultaneously attended Harvard Law School (a 3 year program for the JD degree) and Harvard Business School (a 2 year program for an MBA). At that time, this was offered as a combined 4-year academic program by Harvard, which would place him as entering the joint JD/MBA program at Harvard in September 1971. Therefore, the claim that there are unaccounted-for years is incorrect. - BizJet 10 January 07

=The continued edit war=

So why is this continually added back? I have to ask the relevance of mentioning he didn't, because it seems like it's being added to make some sort of point, which isn't really thought of highly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

=Romney's Religion=

Great grandfather's polygamy
Several editors have deleted the following addition to the trivia section: 	*Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, had five wives.

The editors have offered the following reasons:
 * Doesn't realte to Romney's life. Should we see if southern politicians have a history of slave ownership? No, because it doesn't realte to them
 * This is not relevant to Romeny's lifetime, nor is it encyclopedic
 * This is for Mitt Romney trivia, not other family and history items

Now, a quick Google check for Romney Grandfather Polygamy (for instance) yields 962 hits. This fact has been reported in Slate, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the National Review, and other established media of every stripe and persuasion. Romney himself frequently jokes about the topic, as noted in the Slate article cited in the entry. As several of the articles note, it is pertinent in that Romney has taken a very public political stand defending what he terms "traditional marriage," yet his own family (a very prominent one in early LDS history), engaged in a very different tradition. This page mentions other Romney relatives, including details about the political career of his father. I hope we don't have to get to the point of citing Wikipedia policy of what is "encyclopedic" or the rules about "other pages do/do not do this so ...", but the rules argue for inclusion. In the spirit of assuming good faith, I hope that this isn't a matter of editors not wanting to include information that isn't to their liking.Notmyrealname 03:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Did Romney know this guy? When was this Miles Park Romney born? When did he die? I don't buy your argument that whatever a relative did influences Romney's views on marriage. Obviously close realtives do have a impact on people. If, say, Romney's father was a polygamist, I am sure that it would have a big impact. But since it is a great grandfather my guess is that whatever he did would have zero impact on Romney. Personally I know nothing about my great-grandfather because he died before I was born. His life has no influence on my own. It would be intersting to see the dates of Miles Park Romney's life to see if he was alive during Romney's childhood. As for the asertion that Romney's family does not engage in "traditonal marriage" I strongly disagree. This page notes that Romney has been married to his wife since 1969. He has never been divorced (as far as I can tell). Rommey has been married to one (not many) woman (not a man) for 37 years. Seems pretty "traditional" to me.--Redsox777 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I found a website with Miles Park Romney's info. He was born in 1843 and died in 1904. Not only did he die over 40 years before Mitt Romney's birth, but he actually died before Romney's father was even born.
 * I don't get how somebody could link Romney's political stance on gay marraige to a guy that he never had anything to do with, who died way before he was born. It doesnt seem like a very serious analysis to me.--Sierraonfire 13:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's completely irrelevant to Romney and should remain removed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.wargs.com/political/romney.html

Well, we seem to have a serious disagreement here. The above 3 editors don't think it's worth mentioning in the article (trivia section or elsewhere), yet the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Boston Globe, the National Review, among others all do. Romney himself frequently jokes that "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman." Obviously, he does not endorse polygamy, but he is acknowledging that the practice has a connection to his faith and his family history. Romney has many blood relatives as a result of this. The elder Romney was an important figure in the early LDS church. If Miles Romney had been Hitler (to borrow from Myclob) or a US president, don't you think that would bear mentioning? Again, it comes down to the fact that many major media (on the right, left, and middle) see this as appropriate. This means that this fact merits inclusion on this page. Where? Well, if not in a trivia section, then I propose either in the gay marriage section or his family section.Notmyrealname 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is what his great grandfather, a man he never met, relevant to this article? It's not about hiding anything - Mormons used to practice polygamy and this isn't controversial information - but more about relevance.  We know Romney's a Mormon, so what other purpose does this information serve? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey just passing through... I don't really mind either way about this, but I do think that family history (even distant) could become relevant when someone becomes a public servant. George W. Bush is sometimes judged by the history of Prescott Bush, and recently Gustav Schwarzenegger's past has been affiliated with Arnold's political career. These, of course, are not end-all-be-all precedents and, arguably, may not even compare to this case. But (as the article indicates), Romney was very outspoken in supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment which defines marriage between one man and one woman. Perhaps his distant family history of polygamy is relevant when considered with support for this policy? --Howrealisreal 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The question remains, however, is this relevant? Prescott was turned into an issue in a rather pathetic way, while Gustav was a little more relevant.  I'm not seeing where those two relate to this, nor am I seeing anything to indicate that Romney's support of FMA has any relevance to the general Mormon heritage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeff, whether or not the issue was pathetic or genuine is not the point. Those are subjective adjectives that shouldn't matter. The FMA becomes an issue because it attempted to divisively define marriage in a very limited sense. In actuality, where Romney's family history of polygamy comes into play, Americans have varying beliefs about the institution of marriage. It's important to note that, just like it would be important to note the difference between Dick and Mary Cheney's views on sexual orientation. I guess what I'm trying to say is that politicians are people also, and the policies they support sometimes have an interesting (and noteworthy) effects on their present or historical family members. --Howrealisreal 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The FMA is indeed an issue, and I would never advise to removing information on it. Mitt's great-grandfather's marriage habits, however, are irrelevant to it, however, which is the point.  It's not important to note because it's not at all compelling or relevant at this point.  I don't even buy the Dick/Mary Cheney comparison, they're simply not the same.  If you can demonstrate actual relevance (and not simply pieces that mention the two), I won't protest much more, but the relevance isn't clear at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.. Well like I said above I don't really care either way. What this illustrates perfectly though is the fact that information relevancy is not absolute. It doesn't seem relevant to you, but it does seem to be relevant (for whatever justification) to other people. I guess I'm more of an inclusionist by nature so I threw in my two cents, but I cannot see any value in prolonging this discussion when it will obviously just remain "remove vs. include" based on subjectivity. Respectfully, --Howrealisreal 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, first, not all Mormons have ancestors that practiced polygamy, so the fact that Romney does is significant. Second, our purpose is to provide information. What purpose it serves is up to the reader. Third, the fact that it is widely reported on in general articles about 1) Romney, 2) his electability, and 3) his public stances on gay marriage, show that others across the political spectrum think it is relevant. Fourth, Romney himself makes references to it in jokes in public speeches. (and to Redsox777: we're not discussing your connection to your family, we're discussing Romney's). By the way, just wanted to let you all know that I have requested assistance from an outside advocate on this discussion. Should take about a week or two for them to get to it.Notmyrealname 19:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here are three references from mainstream political sources that make note of the connection:, , .

And from our very own page: "Marriage is not an evolving paradigm," said Romney, "but is a fundamental and universal social institution." Yet, his own family history shows otherwise.Notmyrealname 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * None of these sources seem to mention it as anyhting other than a random sidebar, and are inconsistent in terms of its relevance to Romney anyway - one cites the gay marriage issue, another with Romney being forthcoming about his faith, another about the theoretical 2008 campaign. As an actual issue to be documented here, however, it's amazingly trivial and I still fail to see the relevance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I'm not proposing this as an actual issue to be documented, but rather a fact to be inserted into the appropriate spot. It would have about as much space as the fact that he is an Eagle Scout or that his father was secretary for HUD under Nixon. The general bias of Wikipedia is to include more information and let readers make use of the it how they wish. Second, the Herald item is entirely about the relevance of it. Third, the fact that it is mentioned in relation to so many issues lends support to the argument that it is a relevant fact (trivial or otherwise, that really doesn't need to be resolved). "Random sidebar" could easily describe many items on Romney's page, and Wikipedia in general ;) Notmyrealname 21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The only "bias" is the insinuation that you are propagating (whether intentional or not) that Romney's great grandfather, who died 4 decades before his birth, has something to do with his actions and political stances as Governor, or his upbringing. Your proposal to put information about Mile's Park Romney's life in the "Gay Marriage" section of the “Governorship” heading or the "Early Life" heading as you have proposed would certainly accomplish this regrettable goal.--Sierraonfire 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Romney's actions as Governor with regards to gay marriage have nothing to do with whatever his great grandfather did. Any attempts to manifest a connection are not only ridiculous, but not rooted in fact or reality. You have no basis to validate these claims. Its blatant and outlandish POV. Romney's actions (married to one woman his entire adult life) do not in anyway conflict with his political views on the definition or marriage. Attempts to paint Romney as some type of hypocrite regarding his traditional definition of marriage because of the actions of a man that was dead and buried long before his time are absurd.--Sierraonfire 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, there have been a number of comparisons to the actions of other politicians (Bush and his grandfather, Schwarzenegger and his father, Cheney and his daughter). I dont think that the actions of these individuals have anything to do with the political careers of their relatives. Its is however also worth noting that the politicans in question knew all of these realtives. These are close realtives. Bush grew up with his grandfather, Schwarzenegger knew his father, Cheney raised his daughter. For those that are making these comparisons to Romney, let me repeat the facts I had previously posted about Miles Rommey: He was born in 1843 and died in 1904. Not only did he die over 40 years before Mitt Romney's birth, but he actually died before Romney's father was even born. These are not valid comparisons.--Sierraonfire 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The point was that family members (alive or dead) are often considered relevant to public servants. I specifically noted "these, of course, are not end-all-be-all precedents and, arguably, may not even compare to this case" for the comparisons I made. --Howrealisreal 02:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a fairly decent concensus that this isn't relevant to an encyclopedia article. I tend to agree. What we have here is a concerted effort by a single user (Notmyrealname) to keep it in. By the opposition is pretty clear. It should be REMOVED.--Velvet elvis81 06:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please remember to assume good faith. I have contributed to this page for quite some time, and back up my edits with proper sources. After having my edits reverted I began a discussion here. My proposal has been seconded by another editor. I have given carefully reasoned and sourced responses to the objections raised here. I think that this discussion would benefit from the input of other wikipedia editors that have not been involved with this page. I will submit a formal request for comment shortly and I will also propose some text that I think appropriately frames this issue.--Notmyrealname 17:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. I was not claiming you were acting in bad faith--merely that this was one user vs. three or four. I did not notice the other user's agreement with you. I think outside comment is a good idea. That said, I've had nothing to do with this page as far as creation/editing, so count me one outsider vote against putting it in.--Velvet elvis81 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I was more concerned with the tone of the other editors. Here's another article that makes a very good case as to why the issue is relevant. . This is in addition to the Herald link cited above. These are just the ones that make the link between these two issues. As I have noted before, Miles Romney's polygamy is quite frequently mentioned in the mainstream press regarding his electability. Miles had to flee the US to Mexico, where Mitt Romney's father, George, was born.Notmyrealname 00:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not related to any part of Romney's life, public or private. It has no place in an encyclopedia entry and should not be included on this page at this time. If Romney's political foes make this an issue in the 2008 election, then an argument could be made that the controvesy would have a place in the 2008 presidential section.--Megatropolis 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems interesting to me, and I could see it being included -- but not under the Gay Rights section. Perhaps it would fit better under his early life or something like that. What a man did before 1904 should not be implicated in the political decisions of his descendants -- but it does strike me as a cool thing to know, and as previously mentioned Wikipedia has a bias towards inclusion. So it makes sense to include it.

Considering the context of the times we live in, the contemporary issues of the day, I ask you, which is more relevant: The fact that Mitt Romney's great-grandfather, dead four decades before he lived and even dead before his father lived, was a polygamist, or the fact that Barack Obama's father, though only alive until he was two, was Muslim, whether devout at the time or not, along with his step-father being Muslim, and he being educated for two or so years, in his formative years, in a majority Muslim state, at a Muslim school? At the Obama page, any connections to his Muslim heritage are not available, and, from the talk page, appear to be removed, with repugnant indignance, citing its irrelevance and even nefarious nature were it included. How could Romney's great-grandfather's backward marital practices that are of no way in the norm in the U.S. today, nor ever were, and in no way relates to a trying issue of the day be of import, encyclopedically, if Obama's direct Muslim roots, coming from his father and step-father, as well as some of his education are not of import encyclopedically, especially given the nature of global affairs today? That is obviously a rhetorical question. You all know the answer. You all also know the meaning of the word hypocrisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 (talk • contribs) February 12, 2007


 * agree with the obama correlary. The placement of polygomy on this page is a clear attempt at the connection of Mitt Romney with a practice currently banned in the Mormon church. There are no refrences to Islam on the Obama page, nor would i expect blurbs about the ancestors of southern congressmen and slavery on their pages. I assume that the purpose of this page is to inform the reader about Mitt Romney - not his grandparents or the Mormon church. Interested readers should be able to link to his ancestory or the Mormon church if they so please.68.48.48.129 16:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just reading through this section and thought I'd add my 2 cents. There may be no reference to Islam on Obama's page, but there are references to his connection to Jefferson Davis through his mother's ancestry. I think similar to Obama's connection to Jefferson Davis through his ancestry, Romney's connection to polygomy through his ancestry is an interesting factoid, and worthy of inclusion. JSDA 06:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the fact that he is from a polygamist sect is relevant to the article, folks!!! Not2plato 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mitt's religion
First it was "Mormon", then it was "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", then it was "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)" and now it's "Christian (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

Christian is unncessary and doesn't follow the standard on other articles; hardly any other bios have Christian and then the denomination in brackets. Christian is inferred by listing a Christian denomination. I'm reverting Mitt's back to "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)". Tell me what you think. Antley 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Mormon" is slang, a nickname and should not be used at all in professional literature, with the possible exception of the name in brackets for recognition purposes. The term Christian is appropriate as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints profess to follow Christ. Specifying a specific denomination can be helpful for clarity purposes. Dansen926 13:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mormon isn't slang; it's a nickname. And it is used by plenty of "professional" literature, both by Mormons and non-Mormons.  The proposal was in parenthesis after the official name of the church.  Individual bios shouldn't be used as an example in the whether Mormons are Christian or not debate.  The name of the Church implies Christian; to use both Christian and the name of the Church is redundant and not following the wikipedia standard.  I vote for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). Antley 22:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the term Mormon has a negative connotation to it, and therefore shouldn't be used. I'm not too concerned about using Christian as part of the description, but there should be consistency.   New   England  (C) (H) 19:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the term "Mormon" is regularly used quite neutrally throughout the mainstream press, and there's no negative connotation that I, a Mormon myself, read into such use of the term. I think Antley's suggestion above is best: full name of the church, with "Mormon" in parentheses following. alanyst /talk/ 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing that you are a Mormon, I have to agree with you.  New   England  (C) (H) 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also Mormon and don't see any negative connotations with it.Joseph Antley 04:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"great great grandson of Latter-day Saint leader and apostle Parley P. Pratt
Does this really belong as the 2nd sentense in his biography? Is this more important than who his dad is? Do we mention any other 2008 presidential candidates great-great grandfather's?

It is a fact that a good percentage of people in America would not support a Mormon president. And so it would make sense, of enemies of Romney's to beat it over our heads over and over again that Romney is a a Mormon. I'm not saying that we should ignore it, but how many times does Joseph Lieberman's article mention that he is Jewish? Lets pretend to be fair.

myclob 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told, Wikipedia or not, the American public will sooner or later find out all about PP and his connection to MR. Moreover, PP is a notable historical figure and Wikipedia is not a political advocacy or publicity site. So far as Joseph Lieberman goes, I'm not aware that he has any famous ancestors. Gwen Gale 01:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The question isn't weather or not the american public will find out mitt romney had a "famous" mormon ansestor. Every single person on this planet has a famous "great-great grandfather". With the whole degrees of seperation... The question is weather it belongs in the 2nd sentense of his biography. I didn't explain myself very well with the Joseph Liberman thing. I wasn't asking weather or not his article mentions his Jewish ancestors, I was asking how many times his article mentions that he is Jewish... I think it is rediculous to not think that 5 references to Romney's religion in the first 5 paragraphs is rediculous...70.131.37.238 11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you are mistaken, every person on the planet does not have a famous great great grandfather, not by a mile, so the pith of your comment doesn't hold at all. Wholly aside from that, a strong genealogical argument can be made that virtually every person of western European ancestry is a great... granchild of Charlemagne. Gwen Gale 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Parley P. Pratt is a household name within the Mormon community, but I don't think that Romney's relation is particularly relevant in this context, at least not in the lead paragraph. However, in regard to him being a practicing Latter-Day Saint, that is what is going to be driving many people to this page at this particular time.  Mitt Romney's devotion to a religion with very strict precepts raises the valid concern among voters of, "If elected, could his commitment to his faith present a conflict of interest?"  They're going to be coming to sites like this hoping to find the answer.  I'm not saying we should try to answer that question here, but we'd be doing readers a disservice if we tried to say that in the interest of fairness we won't be mentioning his religion at all.  --Atomicskier 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The reference is not in the lead paragraph, it's in a paragraph describing his family. Gwen Gale 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know where it is. I meant that it may not be relevant enough to lead his bio.  But the more I think about it I guess there's nothing wrong with mentioning it.  Those who don't know or care who PPP is will just read past it.  The main point that I wanted to make is that I think his personal devotion to the LDS church is highly relevant to our general audience, more so than his relation to Pratt. --Atomicskier 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The PP reference does seem relavent as part of the bio and deserves to remain where it is. 68.48.48.129 16:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If Rudy Giuliani's religion is not on his page, then neither should Romney's
Look at Rudy Giuliani's page. His religion is not mentioned. Why should Romney's?myclob 17:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Because his religion is a topic that reflects closely on his public persona, real and percieved. CovenantD 18:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And Rudy's religion is not? Look, in the first 5 paragraphs you read this:


 * 1) Romney is a practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
 * 2) Religion: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
 * 3) He is a great great grandson of Latter-day Saint leader and apostle Parley P. Pratt[3][4]
 * 4) Romney served for 30 months as a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
 * 5) Upon returning from France he transferred to Brigham Young University

This is article is less profesional than the national enquirer. In order to even pretend like this article is objective, it should have similar numbers for References to Romney's religion as other 2008 candidates.70.131.75.59 00:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani's religion is listed on the "infobox" on his page. At least today's version -- Yellowdesk 04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. I have been away from wiki for a while. I made that statement Feb 24th. It was not then... Still Romney's relgion is now mentioned like 5 times in the first 5 paragraphs... How many times is Rudy's?. When I complained about Romney's religion, someone posted on my talk page that they added it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.131.37.238 (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


 * This goes along with my point further down the page. Many people are looking at Romney rightfully asking, "If elected, could Mitt Romney's commitment to his faith present a conflict of interest?"  Not many people ask that about Giuliani for several reasons such as:
 * 1. He would not be the first Roman Catholic president
 * 2. The general public are more familiar with the priciples of Catholicism
 * 3. Giuliani does not appear to be as strict an adhearant to his religion as Romney, ergo it probably would not guide his decision making to the extent that it could in Romney's case.
 * While it may break from convention to focus on a candidate's religion, we still owe it to our readers to mention it when questions about Romney's religion is what will drive many people to read this article.--Atomicskier 19:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Romney made it a public topic when he got into tiff about it with 1040WHO AM radio host Jan Mickelson.GrEp 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Miles Romney's polygamy revisited
The Associated Press just ran a piece called Romney family tree has polygamy branch. This is a well documented fact, and is not disputed by Mitt or anyone else. Mitt often jokes about polygamy. Mitt's father was born in Mexico as a result of his family having to flee the country because of their polygamy. Mitt has a lot of relatives as a result of this. I don't think this should necessarily have an entire section, but there really should be some mention of this, as there has been in the mainstream press across the ideological spectrum. Notmyrealname 02:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * His great great grandfather Parley P. Pratt is a noted early LDS leader. I've added a reference to this with a cite to the AP article. Any notable ancestors are relevant biographically, the polygamy of some of those ancestors could also be, but I have not mentioned the latter. The murder of Parley Pratt is often cited as a contributing cause of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Gwen Gale 02:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mention of a relative separated by four generations is not relevant enough for mention in the first sentence of his bio. The only reason for placing this is to have the word "polygamy" in the footnote.  I'm sure lots of Mormons are decendent from other Mormons, but one doesn't find this same sort of treatment on every famous Mormon's biography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.251.236.130 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC).


 * You're mistaken. The title of the AP article is unrelated to the edit. He's a candidate for president of the US. PP is an historically notable person. The connection is notable. Gwen Gale 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If the title is unrelated, then find a source for their relation somewhere other than a piece primarily about polygamy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.251.236.130 (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I invite you to find a replacement source with a title more fitting to your needs. Gwen Gale 12:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Two citations now support this item. I would say, editors may wish to find yet another with a more neutral title than either. Nonetheless, I believe this item meets WP:BLP along with WP:NPOV. Gwen Gale 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this section should be deleted. The article mentions plenty of times that Romney is a member of the LDS church and there are ample links to the Wikipedia article concerning the LDS church. This article is about Romney, not the church. Thus, a biased, one-and-a-half-sentence summary of the Church is not fitting. "...Romney belongs to a religion about which many Americans know relatively little [no citation]. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is perhaps the most secretive of all the major religious denominations, and keeps its financial holdings, estimated to be over $30 billion dollars, secret, and does not allow persons who are not members in good standing to visit its temples or witness its many ceremonies [no citation]." At least this sentence should be removed, if not the entire section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.251.236.130 (talk • contribs).


 * Sentence removed. Do not remove entire sections in future please. - RoyBoy 800 22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

At least the following three portions of the Religion section do not meet a NPOV standard:

1. The parenthetical in this sentence: "The perceived secretiveness and 'clannishness' of the LDS church (for example, non-LDS members are not allowed to attend temple services, including weddings) is a significant hindrance to many in voting for a Mormon presidential candidate, as is the hierarchical and authoritarian structure of the church[56]." This portion--"for example, non-LDS members are not allowed to attend temple services, including weddings"--is not supported by the citation. It is misleading because the language of this sentence and the sentence prior to it is taken from the cited PBS documentary web page, while the parenthetical portion is not in that page. The author here is guessing as to the motivations of those who responded to a poll. Indeed, the reasons given by people polled are already in the sentence (e.g. secretive and authoritarian), but nothing about temples and weddings is listed.

2. This sentence: "John F. Kennedy was able to overcome similar concerns over Papal authority which burdened his campaign; however, the Romney campaign may have even more difficulty with this, as the LDS church sees its president not only as the ultimate spiritual authority, but also as a prophet of God.[57]." The citation for this is an opinion piece. It is one person's opinion (not based on any poll) as to a possible future problem--LDS belief in a prophet--for the Romney campaign. This is not encyclopedic.

3. This sentence: "However, his religious affiliation provides benefits as well: The church has significant financial and organizational resources that the Romney campaign has already made efforts to tap.[58]." The citation here is a Boston Globe piece published prior to many of the facts of this incident being fleshed out. There is no evidence that the Romney campaign made efforts to tap significant financial and organizational resources of the Church. It is clear that members of the LDS church have donated to Romney's campaign, but it has been made repeatedly clear that the LDS Church is party and candidate neutral and that institutional resources have not gone to Romney's campaign. The whole notion of Romney benefiting from the Church directly (or indirectly by use of Church resources such as organizational lists) has been debunked and gone away. It was based upon one informal meeting between people who knew each other prior to this incident and upon one email from a person associated with the BYU Business School who tried to solicit support for Romney from Alumni of the Business School. This sentence and a citation to this story ignores all of these facts. Furthermore, the sentence explicitly states that what the Boston Globe article falsely implies (Romney is seeking financial and organizational resources from the Church) is a benefit of Romney's religious affiliation. In other words, the tone of this paragraph is this: the negatives of Romney's religious affiliation are X, Y and Z, but the positives of Romney's religious affiliation are that Romney may illegally receive financial and organizational benefits from the Church, as he has already tried.

The three portions are biased, so I am removing them. I suggest removing the entire section as it is not enclyclopedic since it provides only negative views of the Church. Further, there is a wikipedia article devouted to Romney's campaign, to which this section is much more applicable. It does not belong in an article about Mitt Romney, the individual. Unless there is objection for good reason, I will move this section to the article dealing with Romney's campaign for President. Tommysnow 06:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is already a section directed to this issue in the article about Romney's presidential campaign. I am moving this subject matter over to that article because it is wholly about his campaign. Tommysnow 06:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think each of the above-points needs to be responded to before this subject matter is put back in the article. Askme1 19:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually disagree; I believe the religion section does belong (perhaps in a condensed form) in the Romney bio article rather than on the presidential campaign page. I came to the article interested in that aspect and found nothing besides one sentence.  I don't think it should concentrate on the polls and views, etc. that are included in that article in relation to the presidential campaign paragraph, but I'm reading a Slate article linked to in this biography that says the Romney family is one of Mormonism's "elite" families... and this biography itself says that Mr. Marriott was Romney's father's best friend!  This sort of information is interesting and should be further explored in this article.  People are going to be interested and he has said many times that it is an important aspect of his life, so why would that be excised from a biography of him?--Gloriamarie 18:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

=Trivia section= I deleted the "trivia" section in order to make the article conform with the guideline Avoid trivia sections in articles. If any of the information in that section is not trivia, please add it to the appropriate section. Fagles 15:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

=Fan sites= After noticing that Students Against Mitt was removed as "inappropriate", I just removed all these unofficial, pro-Romney sites (see below). I may be wrong, but they appear to violate WP:EL, as well as WP:NPOV. schi talk 23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Romney Sites - National
 * Americans for Mitt
 * Elect Romney in 2008
 * Run Mitt Run
 * Romney by Topic
 * Vote Mitt Romney

Romney Sites - By State
 * Iowans for Romney
 * Massachusetts for Mitt
 * Ohioans for Mitt
 * Oregonians for Mitt
 * Texans for Mitt

Romney Sites - By Organization
 * Catholics for Romney
 * Evangelicals for Mitt
 * Students for Romney in 2008


 * I would not have removed students against Mitt. I run myclob.pbwiki.com. I am pro-Romney but I do not think myclob.pbwiki.com is... It is a Mitt Romney encyclopedia, with direct quotes from him on every topic. I would invite anti-romney people to help me edit it. But quotes are organized by topic, which are organized alphabetically. I have every Romney press release, and this site may become more important, once Romney's governor site goes away... I imagine patrick devall will not keep Romney press releases around on the mass governor servers...It is not pro-Romney, because it has direct indisputable quotes... tell me what you think of the site, and if you don't think you could link to it now, tell me what you think I could do to make it acceptable...myclob 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No one has responded yet... I would like to add this link, if that is ok: http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Quotes it is not pro-romney or anti- romney, it is just ROmney... Direct quotes organized by topic... pretty boring, but important if you want to learn more than just a little bit about him...myclob

Great point about the Massachusett's Governor's web site changing soon. This is a significant month for thoroughly reviewing it for information. - Yellowdesk 06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Myclob, just FYI in case you didn't know, per WP:EL, you're strongly recommended against linking to a site that you own or maintain - but you are encouraged to discuss it on the talk page, as we're doing here. My initial appraisal of your site is that it doesn't seem very neutral.  I see how it may be helpful to have access to an archive of Romney's press releases, but the site's explanation makes it seem like the purpose of the site is to function as a discussion forum, and that it is definitely pro-Romney ("I think if we organize Mitt Romney data in such a way that it promotes order, that it will lead to one logical conclusion: he should be our next president.")  the /Quotes page I'm not crazy about either - while it may be true that they are simply direct quotes, they are still selected, and may have been selected in a manner that may not be NPOV.
 * The proposed links seem like they may run counter to the EL guideline recommendation to link to sites that contain neutral material (although wording on this and related clauses is under dispute on the guideline talk page); and they also may fall under "Links normally to be avoided" #12 (wikis - substantial number of editors?) and #13 (direct/symmetric relations, e.g. unofficial discussion forums). I'm disposed towards not including the link for now, especially considering that (for now) we have access to the governor's office website containing his press releases.  schi talk  07:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow! You are an expert at this stuff! I want my website to be neutral, but no one will link to you if you are neutral...I would let an anti-Romney person edit it with me... If Romney's press releases go away, maybe I will have to create a seperate webspage for them all...Ah, man, maybe I should do it now...myclob

http://romney-press-releases.blogspot.com/


 * I just made this site, but want to get your approval before I waste too much time... I took of my profile, so people cant get to my other blogs... I think this is very balanced... Please tell me what you think...myclob


 * If you have taken all of the Romney press releases and copied them to your site, that's a tremendus resource. I assume they will all go away with the new governor in January, at the mass.gov site. Care to take on any other miscellaneous info. from the mass.gove site?  -- Yellowdesk 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, this cracks me up. The Obama site is a veritable media lovefest. If you truly believed that the sources from which the Obama information is gleaned are neutral, you would have to simply throw your hands up in praise and wholeheartedly nominate him for Emporer of the Universe, with no reservations. Yet this article, which hardly has the "rah-rah" atmosphere of the Obama article needs to avoid pro-Romney sourcing! I am plain speaking:anyone, and I mean anyone, who would even dare to suggest that Wikipedia truly strives to be neutral rather than a Leftist slanted perspective on the world is either truly foolish our and outright liar of low character. And I cannot stand Liberals or Conservatives, from a purely political standpoint. What.A.Joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 (talk • contribs) February 12, 2007

= How much more work needs to be done, until we can re-nominate this... =

...Barak Obama's article is featured, and I don't see that it is better than this article...myclob 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC) I presume you're aiming for a Featured article, but you might as well eventually seek a review for the status of "Good Article" as a way-station toward "Featured." But first, fully responding to the existing peer review is a next step. (For example, I haven't converted any web links to foot notes in more than a month). See What is a featured article. In-line citations are the biggest technical step.

Less technically, one of the requirements is not having editors that discourage evaluators (who are volunteers, just like any other editor), and that are willing to take advice, and editors that willing to allow the article to change in light of the evaluations recieved. Two other evaluators decided not to get involved in the peer review, after one Mitt Romney status-quo-defender, Michael16G, basically told the first evaluator to keep her opinions to herself. (I think it is no coincidence that that editor, Michael16G, has fewer than 35 edits that are not related to Romney over the past year; there are more than five other editors that have edit histories that show they  only edit the Romney page.  Partisan is a reasonable description for single issue editors.)  You can see the peer review here: WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Mitt Romney.

You can bet that a Featured Article review will be a good bit more thorough than the "peer review." As I have said in other places, there are a lot of actions of Romney that do not get a balanced explanation, as Romney not only had proposed many things (rhetoric) that the legislature declined to take up, and the reasons for not taking them up, or for over-riding a veto are unexplained in the article, but further, the article fails to comprehend that any bill passed and signed into law is a joint effort between Romney and the legislature and not all Romney's. Furthermore, Romney, as head of a state is responsible for numerous actions, decisions, personnel, nominations and the like that are un-remarked upon a balanced and encyclopedic manner in the article. It could be that there needs to be an article entitled "Mitt Romney Governorship" to handle the details, similar to Arnold_Schwarzenegger's sub-article Political_career_of_Arnold_Schwarzenegger, or perhaps something like Bill Clinton's sub-article: Clinton_Administration.

In relation to the Obama article, it fails to be a comparable article to the Mitt Romney article, in that the life of Obama has no occasion where he has actually been in charge of something, so there's nothing to write about for Obama but his rhetoric and his personal life history; this is not the case for Romney, and I think the Clinton or Schwarzenegger examples are what you should be aiming for, with the implication that some expanded sub-articles may be necessary to do the topic justice, and earn "Featured Article" status. - Yellowdesk 06:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(Pardon me, I meant to put this here instead of below....please forgive my mistake)  ^LMAO^  ....thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 (talk • contribs) February 12, 2007

=Links=

Updating links...
I am trying to update the links so they conform with wiki style sheets, and am having problems with this link...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/02/23/romneys_stance_on_civil_unions_draws_fire/?page=2

The link comes after this statement:

Romney told the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts (a Republican gay-rights group) that he did not support same-sex marriage or civil unions, but would fight discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The link has nothing to do with 2002, Log Cabin Republicans, or the "fight discrimination against gays and lesbians"
 * The link should be to page 1 of that story, here, which says: "Yesterday the Log Cabin Republicans sharply rebuked the Massachusetts governor, saying his remarks indicate he is backsliding on his 2002 campaign commitment to support some benefits for gay couples." I'll fix it now. schi talk  03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thinks... I don't like linking to the Boston Globe, because if you visit there site more than a few times, they will block you unless you pay them...myclob 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, access is free. You just have to sign up for an account, but you can give any real or imagined info you'd like (just as you can with a Wikipedia account).Notmyrealname 19:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

/\ LMAO /\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.231.223 (talk • contribs) February 12, 2007

why doesn't #78 link?

 * 1) 78 does not link to this article:

Rimer, Sara. "Perfect Anti-Kennedy' Opposes the Senator." The New York Times, October 25, 1994.myclob 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably because, since it's from 1994, it doesn't have free online access at NYTimes.com. schi talk 20:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

External links - "official"
I left it in, but: doesn't look official to me. Flatterworld 04:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Massachusetts Press Releases


 * According to other editors of the Mitt Romney page, the press releases were taken from the Romney's Governor's of Massachsetts state government web pages. The creator of that site's page, (http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Press Releases} was concerned that they would be deleted with the change in Massachusetts administrations. I have not checked to see if that concern came to be a reality. Probably the description for the resource should be changed. -- Yellowdesk 21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved it from the "official" links to the list of "databases," since it seems to be an UNofficial database of official press releases. Fagles 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Mormons Against Romney" and other blog links
A link has been added to an article (Mormons Against Romney) about a "group" of LDS church members that opposes Mitt Romney. The article is actually a thinly veiled promotion of what appears to be a personal blog site. (I think the article should be deleted, but that's another issue)  I can handle a link to a site that may not support Romney, as long as the content of the site is relevant to the main article and the source is both reputable and authoritative. That's going to exclude just about every blog, especially this one. It's not very well written and uses tricks such as sock puppet links like this to appear as though this movement has a larger following than it probably does. It wrongfully features copyrighted material (the trumpeting angel image is a copyrighted trademark of the LDS church), and makes implications against Mitt Romney that border on being libelous, which in a worst case scenario could present a legal liability to Wikipedia if we are seen as promoting a site like this.

So enough ranting from me. People are entitled to their opinion, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog directory. I'm deleting this link and I think we should delete any similar links that pop up. --Atomicskier 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It uses blog software, but it doesn't seem to be a personal blog site (ostensibly it has at least two posters: Lefteria and Left Ahead, and they write nothing about their personal lives, etc.) I think it ought to be treated like a website from any other activist group.  That said, I see no reason to link to it in this case.  There are lots of organizations that oppose Romney, and doing so isn't inherently Wiki-worthy.  If the MAR were to make a real splash in his campaign (like the Swift Boat Veterans), we'd probably want a link or an explanation somewhere, but at the moment they're just another website.


 * The Mormons Against Romney page is absolutely certain to be deleted. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Research resources
Some cites to sources/articles that should be incorporated into the article later: (feel free to add your own too schi talk 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC))
 * http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html Smithsonian Institute's Standard Response about Mormonism Soteriology 16:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Soteriology 16:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html Smithsonian Institute's Standard Response about Mormonism Soteriology 16:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Soteriology 16:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html Smithsonian Institute's Standard Response about Mormonism Soteriology 16:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Soteriology 16:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html Smithsonian Institute's Standard Response about Mormonism Soteriology 16:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Soteriology 16:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

=Allegations of Bias=

”Reads like campaign literature”
This article reads like campaign literature. Tuviya 19:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC) I'd also suggest limiting the images. These all seem like highly polished campaign photos straight out of a marketing brochure. -ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions on how to fix it? schi talk 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The main issue I have is that it is FAR too long, and that it explores basically anything that has happened under his tenure as being done by his hand. It'd be more helpful if it was the size of other Governor-related articles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Taft), and if it had a well defined criticisms section, rather than a few criticisms peppered throughout and quickly rebuffed.  Tuviya 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Bob Taft? Are you kidding? I have never heard of Bob Taft. Bob Taft is not running for president of the most powerful country on the planet in 2008. Bob Taft is never interviewed by national media. Bob Taft is not as important as Mitt Romney, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Barak Obama. Democrats would like it if Mitt Romney, Rudy, and John McCain's sites were all the size of Bob Taft's and Republicans would like it if Hillary's and Barak's pages were the size of Tob Baft's, but lets be real! myclob 14:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're implying that I'm a Democrat - I am not. Tuviya 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try very hard not to call you an idiot. I did not say that you were a Democrat. I said, "Democrats would like it if Mitt Romney, Rudy, and John McCain's sites were all the size of Bob Taft's and Republicans would like it if Hillary's and Barak's pages were the size of Tob Baft's, but lets be real!" I said BOTH sides would want to trim their apponents article to the size of Bob Taft's. I'm not going to speculate why you don't like Romney. I'm not going to say that you don't like him because he is Mormon, and that you like Bob Taft because he is Methodist. I don't care why you want his article to be the same size as Bob Taft's. But it is obvious that it should be more the size of the other candidates that I mentioned.myclob 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to try harder. Wikipedia demands civility from editors, and you are not displaying it.  Furthermore, I never said you 'said' I was a Democrat - my word was imply, and the implication is surely there.  Please try to maintain a cool head, or find another place to deliver diatribes like this.  Wikipedia is not the appropriate place.  And speculating on my religion (I am no form of Christian) is completely outside of the usual practice of assuming good faith.  You are walking a fine line on several policies - be more careful.  Tuviya 15:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure about Bob Taft, but perhaps this article should be more in line with the McCain and Clinton articles you link to. Ie, have a "political views" section, followed by a "Controversies" section. Not the "Here are the great things Romney did while Governor" section we seem to have here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are from his offical website. They are free images and more than appropriate for this page. The pages does not sound like campagn literature. It is sourced, valid and balanced. It is a long article because he is a potential presidential candiate, not just a regular governor.--Michael16G 03:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether or not these "official" images are appropriate, they don't need to be super-sized. IMO, the very fact that they're from his official website presents problems, since they probably are copyright protected, and free alternatives are quite easy to obtain. (not to mention that if they're part of his official site's image/pr, they're staged & cropped in a certain way to communicate a certain image, etc). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By asserting that the page reads like campaign literature because it is "too long" doesn't change my opinion. You have not advanced any evidence to back up your theory. As for the pictures, if the copyrights have been released by his office then they are free images and are suitable for wikipedia. If you think there is a conflict you should take some initiative and contact the presumed copyright holder (in this case, Romney's photo office) rather than making guesses.--Michael16G 13:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The pictures say 'Per gov office: All mages on web page have "been released into the public domain"' - and yet the page they come from does not have that note. We need to have proof of this, beyond the fact that a staffer of his might have uploaded them, don't we?  Tuviya 18:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael, simply saying that I'm wrong about the tone of this article doesn't change my opinion, and I'm not the only one who has said something. As for the images, ZimZalaBim is perfectly correct.  If they are from his official website, they are almost certainly copyrighted, and so must be removed.  Tuviya 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag
I have added a POV tag to this article due to a report on the Wikipedia Neutrality Project. Please discuss the POV problems here, and please do not remove the tags until the issues have been resolved, and when you do, please leave a note on the WNP request on it so we know to close the request.

The rationale for the report which was filed is as follows: Concern, as expressed on Talk: Mitt Romney, that article reads too much like campaign literature. 3rd party review for neutrality would be helpful. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On the behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 22:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and made some minor textual edits that could be percieved as opinionated in favor of the subject. There is some room to develop the alternate positions to some of his controversial statements, opinions, and actions. The only specific problem that I could find was the Tar Baby issue. The use of the definition is an argument in favor of Romney's postion. It should be referenced for the reader, but unless it was used by a member of the debate, it should be excluded from the actual article, or developed in it's own article. Otherwise, I think ZimZalaBim could clarify the issues that lead to a conclusion of biased content.
 * D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 05:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As a consequence of the move of the Governorship section's text to the Governorship of Mitt Romney article, I propose that the POV tag be taken off in several days, from  the Mitt Romney page, since the past concern has primarily been about the governorship period, assuming no editor undoes the move. I leave it to others to decide if Governorship of Mitt Romney is in need of the tag, mindful of the comments immediately above. Comments invited. -- Yellowdesk 16:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that.Notmyrealname 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone has no objections, I'll move the tag today (the 11th). Chupper 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the entire article is a glowing management bio. It is not neutral because it talks all about his successes in a glowing way.

Why does the article claim that he is a "leading candidate?" The citation (citation 2) merely links to his declaration of running for president. This doesn't qualify as a souce that backs up a TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE assumption that he is somehow "leading." Find a better source or remove the lie.

=Same-sex marriage interview= The quote ("Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians") the article attributes to an interview, with a link to this National Review article, does not seem to be an interview. The National Review article sounds to me like he's giving a speech. I tried to Google around and found a few other articles/blog posts that also called it an interview, but I also found this Christian Coalition page that said it was from his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I searched the Senate Judiciary Committee's website and could only find this testimony by Romney. Any ideas? I could be wrong, it might have been an interview, but it certainly didn't sound like one to me. I suppose it isn't super-critical that we properly characterize the source of the quote, but I thought would provide an explanation for why I removed the "interview" characterization. schi talk 01:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Looks like the author took the quote from testimony. Nice catch.--Michael16G 03:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts
Wow - a whole lot of apparent single purpose accounts have sprung up editing here: Its like this guy is running for President or something.... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Curious. I am, of course, going to assume good faith - I certainly hope this isn't an issue like that congressional staffer problem we had, though.  Tuviya 04:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll find some of those single-purpose accounts are remarkably quick in defending the article from "outsider" views, whether editors of the article, or reviewers. See for example the first peer review: WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Mitt Romney. --  Yellowdesk 04:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

=2002 Olympics= This section needs a little trimming and toning down of language. Right now it reads like a campaign brochure. Do we really need to quote people saying they "needed a white knight?" Do we need to quote three people who say he did a great job? Does Pres. Bush saying you did "a heckuva job" (sorry, "fabulous") really sound like a compliment these days? Besides, what else are these people going to say? Let's get rid of language like "the event needed new leadership and they launched a search." Let's also strike language like "He was charged with restoring faith in the beleaguered event, and rescuing the Olympics from failure." I've started with some obvious trims. Let's just stick with the basics here. This isn't the place to tell a story with drama.Notmyrealname 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

= "Mass deletions" (sigh) =

Ok, one of the SPAs just reverted my attempts to trim and remove some of the puffery from this article, claiming they were "mass deletions". (Sigh). Ok, so let's discuss my recent good faith edits: Please explain why these edits make the article worse. This is an encyclopedia, and this article should provide biographical content about the subject. Please stop trying to block attempts to ensure neutrality in its treatment of the subject. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  We don't need to detail a company's financial performance here when it has its own article, and this makes a tacit claim that Romney is personally responsible for its success, which is a POV assertion, not a prooven fact.
 * 2)  npov tag is appropriate because the neutrality of this article is clearly in dispute.
 * 3)  Claiming the Games were "on the verge of disaster" is POV puffery, with the only goal of setting up Romney as some kind of savior. Let's just stick to the fact, and keep the commentary for the campaign trail. (and I don't even think the "white knight" reference is appropriate, but kept that in for now)
 * 4)  Lengthy discussion of the MA health care situation is not appropriate in a biographical article about Romney. Hey, look! There's actually an article for that already! Massachusetts 2006 Health Reform Statute.
 * 5)  How can you dispute that these two white lines should be deleted and that the claim that Romney supports charter schools needs to be cited?
 * I agree with you. I've reverted to your version, and encourage SierraOnFire to join in the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

=Crime=

Crime stats
What should we do with the crime section? Tuviya says that it was attributing things to Romney that couldn't be backed up. This is a reasonable criticism. However, politicians usually claim credit when crime goes down and get blamed when it goes up. I think it's reasonable to assign some responsability to the person at the top when they've been in office for several years.

This is how the crime section was previously worded:


 * Crime: According to statistics released by the Department of Justice the overall crime rate in Massachusetts has decreased 9% between 2002 (the year before Romney was elected) and 2005. Rates of violent crime, crimes against property, rape, aggravated assault, larceny and vehicle theft have all dropped during the same period while the murder rate has remained the same.[35] According to a review of data from the Department of Justice conducted by the Boston Phoenix, arrest rates for violent crimes have plummeted during Romney's tenure. The arrest rates for rape for the three years before Romney took office was 26%. This has fallen to 14% since then. During the same years, the arrest rate also declined sharply for the other three categories of major violent crime: the arrest rate for murder dropped from 48 percent to 26 percent; robbery, from 23 percent to 11 percent; and aggravated assault, from 48 percent to 29 percent.[36]. In July 2006 Romney offered the assistance of his state police force to municipalities dealing with increased crime rates. Romney's offers were rejected by local officials. Officials from Boston Police unions complained that "if state aid hadn't been cut in recent years, then the city's police force might be staffed adequately to handle the crime surge." [37]

I agree that the section could be improved, notably by shortening it, and giving some context (e.g. comparing MA crime stats to US crime stats). However, I think it does give a useful comparison by showing the difference between the declining crime rate and the much farther drop in arrest rates. This should be reworded, however, to make clear that they show different things. I'm afraid we're throwing the good out with the bad.Notmyrealname 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I already trimmed some of it. Its not a question whether you or I think it is reasonable that the person "at the top" takes some credit - we need verifiable sources saying that due to Romney crime dropped in that period. We shouldn't be in the business of conjecture. On a broader note, this article shouldn't be about everything that happened during Romney's tenure, but about Romney. What he did, not just what happened around him. My $0.02. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with ZimZalaBim - but if Romney has notably taken credit for events (like a drop in crime rate, etc.) that happened during his tenure, it may be reasonable to include that he has claimed credit for it. I'm not sure if that's been the case, but just wanted to put it out there. schi talk  20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, if there is a reliable source indicating that Romney has taken credit or the drop in crime, we can note that he has taken such credit. But we shouldn't give credit simply due to correlations. -ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. I believe what happened a while back was that one editor had put in the drop in crime stats, and I had supplemented it with the drop in arrest rates from the Phoenix. I fully agree that this whole page needs to be chopped down substantially, and this section is no exception. Just wanted to have folks talk this through.Notmyrealname 21:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the section looks fine now, FWIW. Tuviya 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

=Legislature's acts= There are a few instances in the article where it says Romney signed such-and-such legislation -- I am not intimately familiar with how things are done in the Massachusetts legislature, but my initial reaction (which appears to be confirmed by this article) is that it is routine for the governor to sign legislation that is passed by the legislature. I'm sure the implication is that the governor was in some way responsible - or at least more so than the legislature - for these laws, but, for example in the "Military and veterans' benefits" section, it's not at all clear that he was. Can someone clarify? Generally, and in line with the discussion in the above section, I'd like to see some clearer distinctions between what Romney has specifically done, as opposed to what happened in the legislature during his term. schi talk 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Its is actually not routine for romney to sign something. He is a repub. His state is heavily democratic. They probably dont agree on much and he probably vetos bills (unlike pres Bush who had both a republican house and senate. He didnt veto much). Also, The veterans benifits section says that he "filed" the bill. This means that he worte it and worked with the legislature on it. He was a part of the development of the legislation. The section notes that he worked with the legislature so it looks good.--216.236.252.234 20:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see how it's not routine - but I think it should be clarified that his signature is approving the legislature's bill, and not that he's necessarily responsible for it. And regarding the veterans section, I was referring to the first sentence ("On September 23, 2004, Romney signed legislation prohibiting employment discrimination against members of the military, including those serving in the National Guard and Reserve. The bill also created a “Commission on Veterans’ Employment Opportunities”.") not the Welcome Home bill. schi talk  21:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This issue of Romney toughing it out in a Democratic state has been raised before, and I just wanted to add that it should not be used as a wholesale excuse to include stuff that he wasn't able to pass. It is not unusual for states to have a governor of one party and a legislature of another. MA itself has had many years of this scenario. The governor should still be judged on what they were able to accomplish through negotiation and persuasion. That said, we should be very precise in terms of what we share of credit we give to Romney for any particular piece of legislation. The health care reform itself seems to have come out of a long negotiating process from both the legislature and the executive branch and the mention here should reflect that.Notmyrealname 21:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The things he wanted to do but had no chance of passing in the legislature belong more in a "political views" section than a "governorship" section.  By the same token, the article should not give Romney too much credit for legislation passed with a supermajority (since the legislature could pass it regardless of his opinions, he was irrelevant to its passage). Fagles 02:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It says he wrote and filed the bill. That means he authored the legisaltion. Its not the "legislature's work." They worked togeather on the issue of veterans benifits.--Redsox777 21:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah but how many amendments were there, and what political effort and horsetrading or rhetoric was involved in getting the legilature's agreement. They were not supine in the process. This is the perspective that the article is lacking: that it is always necessary for the Governor to collaborate with the legislature if his rhetoric is to be turned into law, regulation and policy. As for 216.236.252.234's claim that it was not routine for Romney to sign an enacted bill, I would call that an unsourced and speculative statement awaiting a citation to an analysis of enacted bills not signed. -- Yellowdesk 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The section mentions that Romney and the legislature worked together. If you think that it is important to expand on "working together" then find to info to prove the "horsetrading". The sources provided do not mention Romney sending the legislation back to the legislature with any amendments, so you can cross that off the list.--Redsox777 02:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On that topic, every veto overide qualifies as admendments rejected by the legislature. Several budgets have this sort of back and forth, and the Health Care reform law is notable too in this regard too, where the legislature indicated Romney's vetos were not acceptable. Mitt_Romney. -- 24.63.7.9 04:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

=Abortion =

Abortion chronology
In this diff, anonymous IP address 216.236.252.234 reverted my changes, claiming that my edit disrupted chronology. I'm going to revert, as my changes were not limited to chronological order and I would rather not see them lost without discussing their merits. As for chronology, this is how my edit presented the events:
 * 1) Summary of current positions
 * 2) Romney's position in 1994
 * 3) Romney's position in 2002
 * 4) Romney's position in 2005 and his own explanation of how his views have changed since 2002.

I feel this is better than the revert. Thoughts? schi talk 21:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this is a better format. Keep in mind we are in the "Governorship" section. Governorship goes first, obviously. Your edits have scrambled the order of his progession on the issue. You have mixed up the time line and format that has been used in other sections. You also deleted his explanation for his "evolution" on the issue. I dont see the wisdom behind this reorganization.--Redsox777 21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point Redsox777, but he hasn't done anything on abortion during his governorship. He has taken some positions and made some moves on other things that he claims relate to abortion. I think putting it in chronological order makes more sense for the readerNotmyrealname 21:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed - I see your point about focusing on what he's done in his governorship (that's why I wanted to focus on his current positions first). Personally, I think it's more straightforward and intuitive to read each section chronologically, but that may be a difference in opinion. How about in the intro paragraph we discuss his substantive actions regarding abortion as governor, and then go back and do the chronological tracing of his "evolution".  Also, I think my edit preserved plenty of his explanation for his "evolution" on the issue - I cut out the whole anecdote about turning to his chief of staff and saying, "Beth..." - but still retained a short sum-up (following discussion with stem cell experts at Harvard) with ref so readers could read the whole story.  In a concise encylopedia article, we don't need to keep anecdotes like that in place. schi talk  22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be good to have a "political views" section in addition to the "governorship" section. Most of the abortion stuff could be moved to the new "veiws" section, since not much has happened regarding abortion during his term.  There is already a section on stem cell research.  This would mirror the organization of other politician articles such as John McCain.  In the new "political views" section on abortion, I think Schi's organizition will make the most sense: summary of current views, then history of views in chronological order.  Fagles 02:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The current organization is good. It plots a chronological course of his stance. Making a "political views" section creates a disconnect between views and actions. His actions regarding abortion as Governor, the moratrium on abortion legislation and the veto of the emergency contraception bill, and his political views, his views on Roe v. Wade, would have to be seperated. It doesn't make much sense to do this. All the info is relevent to his views as a politican and governor. I dont think it needs to be changed.--Michael16G 00:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

=Business fluff= An anonymous IP address 216.236.252.234 just reverted my edits to the business section.

My edits read as follows: After graduating from Harvard Business School, Romney went to work for the Boston Consulting Group, where he had been a summer intern in 1974. From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., a Boston-based management consulting firm. In 1984, Romney left the company to co-found Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm.

In 1990 Romney returned to Bain & Company as CEO to manage the company through a period of financial turmoil.

Following his year at Bain & Company, Romney returned to Bain Capital.

The revised edits read like this:

After graduating from Harvard Business School, Romney went to work for the Boston Consulting Group, where he had been a summer intern in 1974. From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., a Boston-based management consulting firm. In 1984, Romney left the company to co-found Bain Capital, which quickly became a highly successful private equity investment firm.

In 1990 Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.

Following his year at Bain & Company, Romney returned to Bain Capital. During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital's average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent. During Romney's tenure, the firm founded, acquired or invested in hundreds of companies including Staples Inc., Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Brookstone, Domino's, Sealy and The Sports Authority. Romney left Bain Capital in 1998 to head the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games.

The revised edits are very close in language to the magazine articles that they cite, and are not written in a NPOV encyclopedic style. I tried to remove value-laden language like "quickly became a highly successful private equity firm." Why not just call it a private equity firm? Why say that he was asked to return to lead it out of financial collapse? This is a little too much color. What the heck is an "annual internalized rate of return" and why should we care? How do we know that this can be attributed to Romney? Maybe the market was booming in general? Maybe he had really good employees? People can read the company links to find out more. Let's stick with where he worked and when. I'll leave it to others to change this.Notmyrealname 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also note that 216.236.252.234 has a history of being blocked for vandalism. Notmyrealname 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

The fluff language needs to go, but the preformance of the buisness is relevent to his business career. The results of a company that he founded and lead should be mentioned in his business section. The language in the recent edit provides a statement of fact, not an endorsement of his leaderhsip as you imply. You also removed the info about the situation at Bain and Company and its reveral of fortune. This should also be noted because it reflects the work that he did there. Its encyclopedic fact and info about his time in business.--Redsox777 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, what where his early business deals? Romney in his speech before Iowans for taxpayer relief detailed it involved jet setting around Asia, but gave no more information. Which governments and companies did he do business with?GrEp 21:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

= Controversy

Khatami Controversy
Now that some time has passed, I think we need to review whether this belongs on this page. If we keep it, do we really need to devote so much space? In the end, Romney denied the guy a police escort. Who cares? Does this really belong on Romney's bio page?Notmyrealname 03:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Its just as important as the "tar baby" and "undocumented workers" controversies. We should either keep all or delete them all.--Michael16G 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm for deleting all of these as trivial.Notmyrealname 17:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think you should delete taxes or housing. The Boston Globe article from today said that that will be Romney's major legacy, while taxes are probably one of the most important issues to be considered for any governor or us presidential candidate. myclob 19:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

=Organization=

Romney Governorship as a Separate Article
I believe this article is the longest US gubernatorial article on wikipedia. The article will get longer as the Presidential campaign continues. Isn't it time to push the governor's administration and political detail into a separate article, relieving the Biography of items that are not biography at all? I propose the followinging titles, with the aim that others might come up with better titles. Add yours below with signature: -- Yellowdesk 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would much prefer we just cull the existing article to make it manageable rather than devoting an entirely new article to his administration. Tuviya 05:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My view is that the article on the Romney Administration already exists, in plain sight, and pushing it from the too-long Biography page, into its own page would allow a terse summary of five to ten paragraphs in the Biography. That terse summary is where the new writing would have to occur. Yellowdesk 15:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Should we make his shorter, or the other candidates longer? Einstein said things should be made as simple as possible but not more simple. What is more important that having an un-biased place for information on our presidential candidates? We should make it un-biased. We should create sub-sections, if information should go somewhere else. But lets not delete information, and make people go to either a pro-romney, or an anti-romney site. I would rather make McCain's and the other sites bigger than delete this info. Sure fix up this info, make it NPOV and all that, but lets let people go somewhere else good (within the wiki world) if they want additional infomyclob 20:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This suggestion would require perhaps fifty editors to expand twenty other articles. Not likely to occur soon. See: United States presidential election, 2008 -- Yellowdesk 07:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Intersting suggestion. The article is in fine shape and should not be shortend for the sake of being shortend. That being said I expect this article to grow if he runs for president. It may get really long at that point. I think we should leave it as is, and make the call on this one if it gets too long once the presidential section grows.--Michael16G 13:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Presidential Articles are a good example and model. There is a lot of non-biographical information that is conveyed in articles that are not formally part of the BIO, but linked to the bio. Non-biography policy information, for example. Take a look at Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. It is interesting how many sub articles there are to each of these biography pages, This allows the particular topic to be expanded upon without making the biography page huge.  It improves the biography page in an encyclopedic manner, and saves information (and work referencing it) from being needlessly deleted, and it makes it possible for the prose of the biography to be compelling, by pushing the detail elsewhere. I should mention one of the qualifications for a featured article is brilliant prose and article stability. This would help in both areas, by pushing some of the detail and fights off of the biography page. Here's a list of those sections that cite articles for fuller detail. -- Yellowdesk 00:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Section and related articles in two presidential biographies. Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton

George W. Bush

George W. Bush

George W. Bush

George W. Bush

George W. Bush

George W. Bush

George W. Bush

George W. Bush

George W. Bush

George W. Bush

I wouldn't put the Romney administration in the catagorey of the Bush and Clinton administration. It doesn't need to be seperated from Romney's page. The Governorship section shouldn't expand since he will be leaving office so there shouldn't be a need to break it off from his bio.--Redsox777 02:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This view presumes there will be no assessment or analysis of the Romney administration during the next two years, or further research on the analysis and articles that already are ublished. A view of history as ossification. In any case, the presidential examples above are simply to show how it is done. Bear in mind that this Romney article is already the longest Governor's article on Wikipedia, and longer than a number of Presidential articles, because detailed text is not pushed into sub-articles. -- Yellowdesk 09:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

An "assesment" or an "analysis" of Romney's term is irrelevent for this page. The inclusion of opinionated reviews of Romney's term in office violate wiki guidelines and shouldn't be included. For the most part the governorship wil be finished once he leaves office. If some additional facts emerge, they should be added, but there is no reason at this point to believe that there will be a signifigant ammount. There isnt a compelling reason to chop off this part of the page.--Sierraonfire 04:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, a magazine or newspaper article cited in wikipedia is a fine example of a published assessment or analysis of facts, and one about Romney may well be relevant to this page. For Romney Governorship and Administration, there will continue to be unearthing of facts, found in public documents, and assessments made of those documents and facts. Here is a recent front page analysis and assessment that has been cited already on the Mitt Romney page: * By Brian C. Mooney.   Romney left Mass. on 212 days in '06: Visited 35 states; built a national network  Boston Globe (December 24, 2006). There will be continuing and similar appraisals as the Romney presidential candidacy moves forward, and assessment of the Romney team's planning and managment capabilities, as a campaigners, and as an administration. Analysis by members of the national media, local media and academics.  All of this will unearth new information, and assessments of that information, and will be citable on wikipedia.  Hence the section is eminently capable of growing in the future, instead of freezing. The Governorship section should be set into a sub-article to make way for new summaries as the life of Romney continues. -- Yellowdesk 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Still looking for several good arguments (since, so far, there have been none) for not going ahead and pushing the not-so-biographical and long section on the Governorship and Administration of Mitt Romney into a sub-article, to be repaced by a succinct shorter summary that links to a detailed sub-article. -- Yellowdesk 07:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Rougher07 has made the change here, creating the new page at Governorship of Mitt Romney and here taking the section out of the Mitt Romney page. -- Yellowdesk 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Sub-Article Titles

 * Mitt Romney Massachusetts Administration (Yellowdesk)
 * Mitt Romney Administration as Massachusetts Governor (Yellowdesk)
 * Mitt Romney Administration, Massachusetts  (Yellowdesk)
 * Mitt Romney, Gubernatorial Administration, Massachsetts (Yellowdesk)
 * Mitt Romney, Governorship of Massachusetts (Yellowdesk)

=Background=

MBA / JD joint degree
..."In 1975, Romney completed the degree of M.B.A., graduating in the top 5 percent of his class from Harvard Business School. He was named a Baker Scholar.[5] In 1975 he also received his J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School"

What actually happened was Romney was admitted to a Harvard Program that allowed you to recieve both at the same time...

I propose changing it to read

"In 1975, Romney recieved a joint M.B.A. and J.D. from Harvard from Harvard Business School and Law School. He was named a Baker Scholar from Harvard Law and graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law and Business School.

The top 5 percent is the same thing as cum laude isn't it? I thought he was cum laude from both harvard business and law...

Anyways, he graduated from both at the same time...myclob 19:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Myclob wrote: "The top 5 percent is the same thing as cum laude isn't it?" No, not according to the Harvard Law School website: "Harvard Law School recognizes the achievement of attaining and maintaining high grades through graduation honors. Students who graduate with a general average of 7.20 and above are honored with the distinction of graduating summa cum laude.  The top 10% of the class, excluding summa, are honored with the distinction of graduating magna cum laude.  Finally, the next 30% of the class, after magna  are honored with the distinction of graduating cum laude."  Thus, if he graduated cum laude from HLS, he was somewhere in the top 40% but was not in the top 10%.  Fagles 02:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the info on his education from the AP: "Career note: He simultaneously earned degrees from Harvard Business and Law schools, graduating cum laude from law school and in the top 5 percent of his business school class." You new description would not be accurate based on this information.--Sierraonfire 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the education line to the following:

In 1975, Romney simultaneously earned an MBA from Harvard Business School where he was named a Baker Scholar, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He graduated cum laude from law school and in the top 5 percent of his business school class.

I think this clarifies his education.--Sierraonfire 04:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One point of clarification: he graduated from the 4-year JD/MBA joint program, which is a bit different from completing each degree separately. Fagles 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

=Housing=

Cut housing section?
I think the housing section should be removed. As it currently reads, it only mentions his beliefs about the importance of housing and the fact that he has, like every other governor in the country, used money to support it. The press releases just contain the usual laundry list of projects that happen in every state. Unless somebody can point to a study that shows that Romney did something unusual or innovative in this area, I think we should cut it out entirely. Just wanted to see if there were any valid objections first.Notmyrealname 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would put perspective on the Romney efforts to compare his actions, in concert with the legislature, to the actual unfunded needs of the Commonwealth. It would also allow the reader to compare the statements of the press releases with the fuller context of housing needs and costs in Massachusetts. -- Yellowdesk 06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be good as long as it didn't cross over into original research. As of yet, I don't know of any studies that does this. Until something like this comes out, or compares Romney's actions against the national trends, then I think we should remove it.Notmyrealname 20:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure some reliable published sources can be reviewed on the topic, including published census reports and analysis, state agency reports, Federal Reserve bank publications, conference procedings and land use planning articles and so on. -- Yellowdesk 17:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, until these can be dug up, I'm going to delete the section. As it stands, it says nothing of any value.Notmyrealname 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The housing section wasn't about what he believed, it was about what he did! People say that that was one of his biggest accomplishments...It took me a couple of hours to write that... The press releases that I quoted mentioned things that Romney did. There is no disputing it. They were factual... Lets not focus on symbolism over substance... "oh it came from romney so it is not pure" so what? It is a press release? So what? It is not un-biased, but are you really disputing that the things that it says in their happened? Do we need an un-biased source in order to chronicle un-disputable events? It would have been better to find better sources, instead of delete the whole section because I referenced press releases, and you say that it said nothing... well it would have been better for you to give an example of fluff...It wasn't pro-romney or anti-romney...in fact most republicans probably didn't like it, but it was important historical facts that Romney carred deaply about especially sense his father was in charge of HUD. myclob 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My edit had to do with the lack of notable actions mentioned in the section. The section said that "advocated affordable housing as a way to help the economy." Well, so does just about every governor, mayor, and urban planner in the country. Romney, in coordination with many other officials at the federal, state, and local level, spent money on some projects that you had listed. However, nobody claims that it has either had a significant impact on housing affordability in Massachusetts, nor that any of the programs have been particularly innovative. Thus, unless some new information can be presented, it doesn't really merit any discussion on this page. Contrast this with the health insurance bill. This is new and noteworthy. On the other hand, we don't have a list of every health care project that was funding in Massachusetts during the past four years, even though I'm sure that Romney believes that healthcare is important. Do you see the distinction? My edit was not made for political reasons.Notmyrealname 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Myclob, this may be helpful guide, it's from Notability: basically for some topic, has the topic received the attention and interest of several independant published works, beside the person or organization in question. -- Yellowdesk 20:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ====Rationale for requiring a level of notability====
 * In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources.
 * In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors.
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

=Names for campaign sections= This doesn't strictly apply because it's about article names, not sections, (and also about elections, not campaigns) but consider WP:NAME. schi talk 01:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose the several campaign sections be re-titled for consistancy, readability and clarity:
 * Massachusetts campaign for U.S. Senate, 1994 election
 * Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign, 2002 election
 * Presidential campaign, 2008 election

Merits: no section title starts with a numeral, the name of the office is clearly stated for non US readers. The abominable formation 2007-8 is dispensed with for the presidential campaign. Comments or improvements? -- Yellowdesk 15:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed the section titles today, to: -- Yellowdesk 23:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mitt Romney
 * Mitt Romney
 * Mitt Romney

=Past tense conversion?= Do we need to convert the language in this article to past tense now that Romney's term is over?Notmyrealname 05:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

= Proposal on reordering the sections and section levels =

I am inclined to put the sections in chronological order, changing "Political Campaigns" section." The campaign for president will bury the short governorship section, and since it is the currently occuring activity, the presidential campaign should be at the bottom of the page/article. Presently (as of Jan 10, 2007 here) 1. Biography 1.1 Early life and education 1.2 Business career 1.3 CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee 2 Political Campaigns 2.1 Massachusetts Campaign for United States Senate, 1994 election 2.2 Campaign for Massachusetts Governor, 2002 election 2.3 Campaign for United States President, 2008 election 3 Governorship

Proposed: 1 Early life and family 2 Education 3 Business career 4 CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee 5 Early Political Campaigns 5.1 Massachusetts Campaign for United States Senate, 1994 election 5.2 Campaign for Massachusetts Governor, 2002 election 6 Governorship 7 Campaign for United States President, 2008 election

I propose the Presidential campaign be a top level section, to better permit subsections in the Presidential Campaign. Or ALL of the sections could be made top level for consistency. Comment and criticism invited. -- Yellowdesk 03:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As implemented -- Yellowdesk 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 5 Massachusetts Political Campaigns 5.1 Campaign for United States Senate, 1994 election 5.2 Campaign for Governor, 2002 election 6 Governor of Massachusetts, 2003-2007 7 Campaign for United States President, 2008 election

=Endorsements= Should we list endorsements for Romney's 2008 nomination bid? None of the other contenders have them. Also, every candidate gets a million of these, so this list will go very long. Seems to border on campaign PR to me, but I'd appreciate if others would weigh in.Notmyrealname 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC) googling these terms: Results include things Romney himself endorses. Lt. Gov Healy is one of this type. Some pages don't have endorse on the page, but are in the link to the page. There are a lot of groups that endorse Romney. This has some similarity to the "X for Romney" type of list. Today, top of the list is Senator DeMint's endorsement. If 10 senators, 10 governors, 20 mayors, and 30 Federal House members, and...where does it end...endorse, that begins to approach 100. Plus "X for Romney" Political Action Committee endorsements, a slightly different category, but meaningful in a different kind of way. -- Yellowdesk 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * < "romney endorsement" > shows 45,600 items today.
 * < "romney endorsement" president > shows 24,400 items today.
 * < "romney endorsement" president campaign > shows 895 items today.


 * and another strategy is to have a sub page: List of politicians endorsing Romney -- Yellowdesk 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

=Created new article: Mitt Romney presidential campaign =

I'm looking through the news reports and wow. Information relating to Mitt Romney's presidential race is starting to get to the out of control point. Because of this I have created a new article using the same style as other pres. campaign articles. I hope I'm not jumping the gun, but I'm imagining his presidential run section growing extremely fast in the next couple of weeks. Chupper 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This page lacks personal political beliefs.
I came here looking for information on his stance on abortion, trade, voting record etc. etc. This is just a biography, surely it can be expanded? 134.226.1.229 15:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stances on some issues can be found in the press releases, actions and policies described and cited in the Governorship of Mitt Romney, which you doubtless saw the link for.  There will be more over at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 as time passes and the campaign becomes more fervent.  -- Yellowdesk 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no voting record because he has never held office as a legislator and therefore has never voted on any legislation. The governorship article does mention some bills that he signed or vetoed. -Fagles 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a veto record, which has yet to be described, and a signed bills record, which perhaps one percent are described. And there's a rhetoric record, some of which is described, and much not (for example, proposals that were dead letters in the legislature's view.) -- Yellowdesk 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it could be useful to include a section on political views. There are plenty of sources that describe his political views, or quote him on such, particularly on things that he might not have had any legislative experience with.  We can take parts from the governorship articles that don't really belong there (I'm thinking in particular of the abortion section).  It would, of course, be tricky to keep it WP:NPOV-compliant, but I think it'd be a very useful addition to the main article. schi talk  20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the place for describing Romney's beliefs is an historical critique section in the presidential campaign page--that campaign is the only reason people care about his views. I suggest not moving the abortion section out of the Governorship, as there is a bit of history on his changing views revealed  as governor. He was endorsed once by Republicans for Choice. I think an analysis of his views written afresh for the presidential page is desirable. One example, by no means a model, as it is scathingly negative, is the recent "Romney is not a Conservative" critique that's been out for a while, which the Boston Globe cites, and which the Romney campaign will have to deal with. Here's the Globe citation: (Michael Levenson.  Activist rains on Romney's parade: Says the candidate is not conservative The Boston Globe'' January 22, 2007.)-- Yellowdesk 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I didn't mean to take out the entire abortion section; I just think there's probably a sentence or two in there can be used in a "Political views" section. I don't see why a "Political views" section would belong better on his presidential campaign page then on the main page; the campaign page would be better off with a section on campaign issues. schi talk  22:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If Sam Brownback can have a Political Views section, so can Romney. - Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.124.152.117 (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Here are some arguments for including Romney's views, beliefs and so forth on the Romney Presidential Campaign page. Here's a single example of changing views, and the campaign. Doubtless there will be more analysis articles like this as the campaign progresses.
 * The reason his views are notable, is he's campaigning for president. If he were not, they would interest few people and not recieve the interest of journalists and there would be nothing to source and cite.
 * His views have been changing, and they have been changing because of his campaign and a national perspective being taken by Romney: some of the stances taken to get elected Governor, or taken when campaigning for Senator have less popular reception nationally as in Massachusetts.
 * (Scott Helman. Romney, appealing to core GOP voters, toughens pro-gun rhetoric The Boston Globe. January 14, 2007)
 * (Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press Writer. Romney retreats on gun control: Ex-governor woos Republican votes The Boston Globe,   January 14, 2007)
 * -- Yellowdesk 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We may be able to prevent some edit wars by calling it a "Political Positions" section rather than a "Political Beliefs" section. People may disagree on what he "really believes," and it's impossible to know who is right.  Instead, the encyclopedia can say what his positions are, and readers can draw their own conclusions.  Taking abortion as an example, a Political Beliefs section would say "Romney believes X," whereas a "political positions" section would say "In the 2002 Gubernatorial campaign, Romney's platform stated Y.  On January 26, 2007, Romney announced that his position was Z."  -Fagles 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

-->OK: objections or improvements to the proposal that a new section called Political Positions appear on Mitt Romney presidential campaign%2C 2008? -- Yellowdesk 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since there are no objections, I'll start a new section... with a stub of text to start things off in the next day or two, as described above.  (It looks like this has been done already)-- Yellowdesk 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

=Looks=

Use of either Botox, or cosmetic surgery by Romney?
For the third time today I heard mention of Mitt Romney's possible use of Botox or cosmetic surgery, supposedly received in Concord, MA at Emerson Hospital. Online searches show many returns, and there are hints of a CNN story, possibly timed to follow an official announcement of candidacy. Anyone have citable information on this subject? Mormons are prohibited from using elective anti-aging or cosmetic procedures. Restoration or correction of damge from an accident, or disease (auto-immune) is allowed. CApitol3 04:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation above about restorative, cosmetic or corrective surgery for Mormons. I have actually never heard this before ever, and can say with certainity that it is incorrect. Restorative, cosmetic, or corrective surgery is well within any bounds of Mormonism. Just started an account today. Look forward to improving Wikipedia on NPOV in the future. --Scoresalot 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not misinformation. I did not state that restorative or corrective surgery. Welcome to wikipedia. CApitol3 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

=Reform platform?= In the 2002 governor race section it says "During the general election Romney ran on a reform platform." What does "reform platform" mean exactly? Wasn't he preceded by other Republican governors for the previous eight years?Notmyrealname 18:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

=Vandalism=

"Janet Mitt Romney"?
Someone changed Willard Mitt Romney to Janet Mitt Romney. I'm changing it; it appears to be vandalism.

Janet Mitt Romney Theyre at it again. Changed it to Janet. It's most likely vandalism, I'll watch this page. I'll check and see if it is actually "Janet" or not. N734LQ 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I googled Janet Mitt Romney and nothing. Willard Mitt Romney - the real guy.Redsox7897 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

= He isn't an Eagle Scout. =

It says Romney is an Eagle Scout, but I heard Romney say on the Michael Medved show, after Michael Medved introduced him as an Eagle Scout, that he really isn't one (but some of his sons are). I dunno how to get a transcript of the interview, though; is there any source that verifies he isn't an Eagle Scout? I'm pretty sure there are news articles that falsely report him as one, that's how that fact keeps floating around. I don't want to delete the sentence, though, because my source (the Medved interview) isn't available anymore, as far as I know (except maybe to subscribers to his site). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.8.115.11 (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC).


 * He is not. See Hugh Hewitt's book A Mormon in the White House? pg. 79. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.138.60.136 (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


 * A newspaper that a lot of this came from has retracted it. Seems to a confusion with his sons being Eagles. See . I've removed the cat from the article.Rlevse 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

=Pronunciation=

According to John C. Wells’s Longman pronunciation dictionary (and other authorities), the name Romney has two pronunciations: 1) ['rʌmni], i. e. as if it were written "Rumney" –with the vowel sound of cup; and 2) ['rɔmni], "rOmnee" (British English –with the vowel sound of dog), or ['ra:mni], "rAAmni" (American English –with the vowel sound of start).

It seems (but I’m not quite sure) that both pronunciations are used in Britain, but only the second (['ra:mni], "rAAmni") in American English.

Does anybody know: 1) how Mitt Romney is commonly referred to in the United States (that’s easy, I think); 2) how he and his family pronounce their surname? (I suppose that’s more difficult –but there are probably some recordings of him saying Romney).

I think this would be an interesting piece of information.

Many thanks. Tom Hope 15:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added the pronunciation of his name in standard IPA notation. In short, Romney rhymes with "bomb me." Gwen Gale 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help: it was very kind of you.


 * So, it’s the second pronunciation above, isn’t it?


 * You don’t think that a British pronunciation should be added. Well, it’s an American name (or rather, it’s the English surname of an American politician), all right. But there are some differences between the British English (received pronunciation) and the American English (general American) phonematic systems, as you know; and the speaker of British English might want to know how he has to pronounce this surname within his native sound-system (moreover, we should also think of the not native speaker of English who considers Br. Engl. to be his model –me, for example, or everybody here in Europe). Now, though we know that gen. Am. uses [ɑ:] where the r. p. uses [ɒ] (as in, say, Tom), this is not known, or clear, to everybody. (Furthermore, in the pronunciation of Willard there’s an unpredictable difference: Am. Engl. ['wɪl(ə)rd] vs Br. Engl. ['wɪlɑ:d] –the vowel of the second syllable.)


 * But never mind. I don’t insist.


 * Nevertheless, there are some particulars in your transcription that I can’t understand.


 * Your transcription is: wɪ'lɜd mɪt ɹɑ'mnɪ.


 * 1) Why not with [] (or //)?


 * 2) The stress is on the first syllable, both in Willard and in Romney, isn’t it? This is clearly a material mistake, and I’ve now corrected it.


 * 3) I think that the standard IPA symbol for the short schwa is not [ɜ] but [ə]: [ɜ] is normally used for the long vowel ([ɜ:], of a tenser quality than the short one).


 * 4) More important, the graphic -r- of Willard is pronounced (not mute) in Am. Engl., thus ['wɪlərd], that readily becomes ['wɪl.rd] (['wɪlrˌd]).


 * Tom Hope 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And one more point: "standard IPA pronunciation" (?) or "standard (American) pronunciation" (transcribed with IPA symbols)?
 * Tom Hope 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't know how I got the stresses wrong but I did, thanks for fixing them. As for the character choices, they do give the pronunciation spot on in General American English. It's "standard IPA pronunciation" with a "General American" accent :) Gwen Gale 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

=Critisisms=

How much do you want to bet that the person who linked to this "Article" wrote it?
"Romney on Iran and Iraq Mormons For Peace, January 24, 2007"

This should not be listed in the "articles about Romney" section... No one cares about this site, and what it has to say. The New York Times, Boston Globe, and Mormons for Peace? Come on. Get real.

The video of Romney’s debate with Kennedy is highly cut... can we get a more un-biased, full video? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.75.59 (talk • contribs) February 4, 2007


 * I removed the blog link. The editor who put it in James Oliveleaf can see if it survives as prose with a citation over on the presidential campaign page. -- Yellowdesk 05:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

180-degree turns on abortion, death penalty, homosexuality, and Iraq war issues
I don't see Mitt Romney's membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as an issue, moreso it is the fast mounting number of latter-day "conversions" the man seem to be having on his policies. Conservatives should know Mr. Romney could not have been elected governor of that bluest of blue states without having at least pretended to have been socially moderate (which in other states might easily be termed liberal). The real question is when is the man pretending? When he assures a group of Republican homosexuals (I know, who'd of thunk that) he would be a better friend to them than Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton, or when he stood up before a gathering of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts and assured them he wouldn't seek to overturn abortion laws? Or, maybe his stance on the death penalty, or would it be Iraq troop deployment? There's so much to choose from.

What conservatives should be concerned about is that he will likely be similarly as dependable to them as he was to Massachusetts' liberals. Worse, it isn't difficult to see James Carville's eyes fill with glee with the prospect of casting Mr. Romney as a sort of oily political prostitute: "I was against abortion before I was for it, and now I am defintely against it again. I mean it this time." Of course somewhere the Log Cabin Republicans have a video of Mitt telling them how much better a supporter of gays he would be than Ted Kennedy. That will really be rich in a September '08 television ad.

On wikipedia it seems there isn't a way of keeping even a cited, linked, sourced statement that is in the tiniest way inconvenient or less than sterlingly praiseworthy on either of the Romney articles. It is summarily labeled irrelevant and reverted. With a small army of supporting editors and unregistered users, working under a banner of Mitt, reverts can take place quickly, and the 3 revert limit by a single member easily overcome.

But there won't be a revert button for the televised 527 group ads where Mitt, in his own voice, tells an auditorium full of homosexuals (the two muscled tank top-clad lads cuddling on his left are a nice touch) he will be a better friend to them than Ted Kennedy. User:GearedBull 00:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (Fixed misleading signature above of User:GearedBull per this edit) -- Yellowdesk 05:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we remove arguments for or against Romney? This is not the forum for someone to say we should not vote for Romney... The above comment should be removed... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.131.75.59 (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

= Video of 1994 Romney/Kennedy debate hosted on YouTube =

This video is heavily edited. If it gave us the raw information, I would consider it less biased, but it clips and cuts and takes him out of context. myclob 12:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a reasonable criticism. This link has come and gone and come back a number of times. -- Yellowdesk 14:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was a big story, but I don't know if it's tactics are worthy of an encyclopedia...If we don't have any standards, what will encourage someone to release an un-edited, more accurate version of the debate for the good of the country? I don't mean to sound all noble and everything, but isn't transparency good? Why hide the rest, unless you have an agenda. I guess we have pro-Romney videos from his official YouTube site...maybe we should create a list of all Romney videos by year! I can do it on my site... http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Videos I'll start putting them here by year... I'll include the negative ones too... myclob 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to be time to delete the edited version of the event, pending a full video link, and that has been done. Complete video and link to it welcome and invited. -- Yellowdesk 02:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Edits aside Kennedy's quote about himself being pro choice, and Romney being multiple choice should be included in the article.GrEp 20:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mitt is also related to Billy the Kid. it seems like a fun fact and should perhaps be included?

= Discussion about title of Political views of Mitt Romney article =


 * There is an active discussion about potentially revising the name of Political views of Mitt Romney to Political positions of Mitt Romney, or, depending on how the conversation develops, some other name. In case you're interested,  go to  Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney.
 * A brief history; the article started as a section called Political positions in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 article, following a discussion here at Talk:Mitt_Romney  It became a stand alone article in mid-March.
 * -- Yellowdesk 04:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

= "Students for Mitt" = This might be worth noting because it made a few headlines and is a unique tactic, but the line that was added on 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC) was poorly written and the cited source is not very reputable. I will rework it when I get a chance (unless someone beats me to it), but for now I'm deleting it. --Atomicskier 16:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It belongs on the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008, as a detail related to the campaign. -- Yellowdesk 04:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call.--Atomicskier 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

=Where's Wiki's No Point Of View Policy? =

This entry appears to be little more than a fluff public relations brochure typed up a junior member of Romney's own staff. TJ aka Teej 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your specific critque and particular proposals for improving the article to obtain the Neutral Point of View you desire are invited, so that a discussion among the editors on how to accomplish that might occur. -- Yellowdesk 05:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

= Mitt Romeny's wife name is listed as Alan =

I assume this should be Ann. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.84.200.55 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

=Longtime hunter and rifleman= "Now the liberal media"? His own aides are part of "the liberal media"? Interesting POV. Just searched FOXNews.com for "Romney Hunting" and saw several FOX news stories calling his claim false. TJ aka Teej 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Now the liberal media is trying to say that Mitt has not been a longtime hunter. They are trying to make him out be dishonest, claiming that he went hunting only once when he was aged 15, and not again to last year when he was 62. They would love for people to believe that Mitt is the sort of candidate that would say whatever it takes to get elected. Can someone refute this? Can we get some pictures with Mitt holding a rifle, a handgun, or gutting a deer or something? CApitol3 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe there are some photos of him killing animals with his bare hands. Apparently, an aide confirmed the two hunting trip story, as seen in this AP story:


 * "Yet the former Massachusetts governor's hunting experience came during two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia.


 * An aide said Wednesday that Romney was not trying to mislead anyone, although he confirmed Romney had been hunting only on those occasions in his life."


 * The latest story is that he has hunted small game in Utah, which explains why he hasn't had a hunting license.


 * So in other words, the Romney campaign first confirmed the two-trip story, and now they have an (essentially unverifiable) story to replace it. Not sure what there is to refute. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 17:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

= Mitt was not an eagle scout. =

The article referenced stating that he is an eagle is not accurate. He has stated in interviews on television and radio that he was not an eagle. As an addendum, some of his sons have earned the eagle badge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.177.250.253 (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

It would be great to get a citation to this, so we don't have the repeated appearance and removal of "Eagle Scout" text. Any citations / sources to dis-avowed eagle scout membership? -- Yellowdesk 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hewitt, Hugh, "A Mormon in the White House," pg. 79. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.251.236.130 (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi Randy,
 * email from his staff dated 7 June 2007:

Thank you for contacting the Romney for President Campaign. Governor Romney has been involved in Boy Scouts; however he is not an Eagle Scout.

Again, thank you for your interest. Please feel free to contact us again if you have any further questions/comments regarding Governor Romney.\

Sincerely, Sarah

Romney for President Rlevse 10:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

= Willard? Mitt? =

It is mentioned on this talk page, only in passing and re a/the trivia section, that his football-playing uncle Milton Romney (who has a small Web presence, including citations of national print media) is the origin of "Mitt". In my household "What kind of goofball goes by 'Mitt'?" is a (very minor) campaign issue, and of course YMMV. It's that much less trivial in the context of the deprecated "Willard", after J. Willard Marriott, the Mormon head of the Marriott companies (which are Mormon enough that their Las Vegas facilities are apparently the major gambling-free venues) and supposedly his father's best friend. I'm not advocating we undertake OR on this, but we should be alert to whether these hints of his lifelong imbedment in an interesting family/cultural matrix are on their way to emerging as a notable, even if peripheral, campaign issue. --Jerzy•t 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Willard Mitt Romney was named after J Willard Marriott, who was the founder and owner of the Marriott chain of hotels. The hotels have no connection with the Mormon church other than the owner (Marriott) was a Mormon, and he does put a Book of Mormon in each nightstand along with the Gideon Bible. I don't know the origin of Mitt, but this information was confirmed on his appearance on the Tonight Show recently. Bytebear 04:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

= Early life =

Did Romney follow church teachings and go on a two year mission? TJ aka Teej 11:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He was formerly a Mormon "Bishop" (lay leader) for the State of Massachusetts. Yes he was a missionary. It's in the article. Citations:
 * Miller, John J. "Matinee Mitt." ''National Review, June 20 2005.
 * Reilly, Adam Onward, Mormon soldiers How the Latter-day Saints could make Mitt Romney president The Boston Pheonix March 18 - 24, 2005. Retrieved May 8, 2007.
 * Pelofsky, Jeremy. White House hopeful Romney woos religious right | The Boston Globe, May 5, 2007. Retrieved May 8, 2007.
 * -- Yellowdesk 14:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For clarification, a Bishop (Mormonism) is a 5 year (give or take)calling, and is basically the same as a pastor or reverent of a congregation. Bytebear 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

= Net Worth at least $260 million =

New article out in NY Times where his aides estimate Romney to be worth $260 to $350 million: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/us/politics/12romney.html?ref=politics 64.252.193.223 13:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Romney married his high school sweetheart, Ann Davies in 1968. They have five sons (Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben, and Craig)

This article includes nothing about this man's quarter billion dollar personal estate? How STUPID!!!

He made his money by buying companies, firing employees and shipping their jobs overseas. He is a job outsourcer of historic proportions!!!

This article is nothing but fluff!!!!

In fact, its propoganda Not2plato 16:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

=Wikipedia is not an advertising service= Political positions section should be kept short. It's a biography, not an ad. I think some of this can be trimmed. Maybe I'll do it tomorrow. A few lines, ok, not more. May shift it to his political positions articlePipermantolisopa 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

- Do we really need links to his children's myspace pages? That seems more than a little over the top. Just Another Fat Guy 05:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Strictly neutral biography, no ads, not for any candidate. Wikipedia is not an advertising agency.Pipermantolisopa 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

= Miller (2005) =

I just removed recently-added text (something to the effect of "He avoided service in Viet Nam by receiving a deferment") because it is not at all clear, based on those portions of the Miller article that are available online and without registration, whether a deferment was received so that he could do LDS service in France, or if he did so for the underlying purpose of "avoiding" the war.

Aside from all of that, I'm not sure that I'm crazy about using this article as a reference, since it is not available in its entirety without registration/payment to NRO (National Review Online).

What do others think? DagnyB 23:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooops -- my bad. I was mistaken in my belief that Miller was used to substantiate the addition I just reverted (which, it now appears, was unsourced). Still concerned about using a not-fully-accessible article, though. DagnyB 23:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

political positions section
What's the purpose of the last 2 paragraphs, re: death penalty, civil unions, etc. President has little to do with death penalty. Possibly better mentioned under the political positions article. If you list his death penalty position, why not list his position on broccoli (Bush, Sr. was opposed to it) and his opinion on Hugo Chavez? Listing too many positions makes the article become an ad. The abortion position seems relevant to his biography because of a relative's death.Pipermantolisopa 04:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that views on the death penalty are much more relevant to a president's position than abortion. The president actually has the power to grant amnesty, appeal to governors, and set standards for the federal death penalty, while a president only gets to appoint judges that may have a certain view if a Supreme Court justice leaves or dies during that president's term.   Civil unions are also important in this case because of how Romney dealt with the situation as Mass. governor (where civil unions were legalized during his term by the Supreme Court of MA) and because of how he has now approached the issue.  And actually, views on Hugo Chavez can tell you a lot about a politician's political views.  I would actually say that the more positions listed, the better; is it a "Political Positions" section or not?---Gloriamarie 18:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

= Debate =

If he is the one who said “I’m glad they are at Guantanamo, I don’t want them on our soil, I want them at Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to our lawyers. I don’t want them to be on our prisons. Some people have said we had to close Guantanamo. My view is we have to double Guantanamo. We have to make sure that the terrorists…” - he is an idiot.

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mitt Romney article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." See talk page guidelines. Alanraywiki 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC) 70.253.101.2 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Concerning your position and comments on the Fair Tax on 8-5-07, you just lost millions of voters!!! (Literally) Politicians do not understand the problem the citizenry is having with excessive taxes. Read the book and you will understand why this one major change could be the most important change for this country in the last 60 yrs.

= Biography Section =

The bio section states: "The Romney’s are practicing Mormons and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This implies that Mormons are anything but identical to "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." But this is not the case. They are the same thing. I am editing this sentence to read: The Romney’s are practicing members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Tommysnow 05:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This needs to be responded to before the language is put back in the article in the objected-to form. Askme1 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Used to be Independent and voted for some Democrats
When reading an article on Romney, I thought it was interesting that he's said that he was an independent during the Reagan years and voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas in the 1992 presidential primary. This is interesting and should be included in this article, possibly in early years?--Gloriamarie 21:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you can cite to the article, which presumably is a reliable source. -- Yellowdesk 14:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

= Controversy =

Hey, I added a controversy headline and a subject about Mitt Romney mistreating his dog, which I read in The Guardian today. It has since been removed, I don't know why. It seems quite an important addition to the page because it has been reported on both sides of the Atlantic. So it is important and relevant. Here's my original text:

''According to the British Newspaper 'The Guardian'(30/6/07), in 1983 Mitt Romney tied a kennel containing his dog, named Seamus, to the top of his car on a twelve hour drive between Boston and Ontario. At one point Romney's son complained of a brown liquid dripping down the rear windscreen. Romney apparently casually stopped, washed Seamus down and then continued on his way. Romney reportedly said over the controversy that the dog enjoyed being on the roof.''

I understand that I do not know how to use the referencing thing on wikipedia so I merely referenced inside the paragraph I added.

--Madkaffir 21:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted it because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, and not a news report. From WP:NOT:
 * Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
 * To me this is the sort of election-year trivia that will quickly be forgotten. It doesn't represent any sort of legitimate controversy, and is pure media tabloid sensationalism.  I realize that you added this in good faith, but I don't feel that it belongs in the article, particularly considering that attaching such weight to a relatively minor incident is sort of preposterous.  If it gets to be a big make-or-break election issue, then I can see putting it in, but at the moment there is a basic threshold of notability and weight that this tidbit fails to meet. Silly rabbit 21:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For more information, see also WP:RECENTISM. Although this isn't a policy or guideline, it may help to put into perspective my reasons for removing the section.  Cheers, Silly rabbit 22:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The information should be placed in his Presidential Campaign article.--Gloriamarie 22:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think somebody should add the amount that the SMC employee's had cut out of their paychecks. It was between 6 and 97 cents depending on whether you believe managment or the union. Not having this information makes people think there were huge cuts in their pay.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E2DB1E3DF933A25753C1A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

I do not think that this should have been deleted, therefore it should be restored. If it was a real news report, then it should be put on WikiPedia. You say that WikiPedia is not a news report, but it is an informational scource and it should have that kind of information on it. -Libertyville 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

I agree with "Silly rabbit". This story is "pure media tabloid sensationalism."Dansen926 13:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

=Problems with Governorship section: accuracy and POV= I tagged the governorship section as having its accuracy and neutrality disputed. The section is not a neutral summary of his governorship. It basically consists of one paragraph of inaccurate, over-the-top praise, followed by a long paragraph of criticism that probably is not important enough to be such a big part of this summary. I would delete the praise (discussed below), delete the long discussion of his out-of-state travel, and add more important neutral information such as the passage of the health care bill (probably the most noteworthy accomplishment of his term).

Here are some of the main inaccurate / POV statements:

1) "During this time he did not raise taxes or debt." (source: Mitt Romney Inc. website).
 * Read Governorship of Mitt Romney for the full story and citations. Basically, he increased the amount of money that people had to pay the government.  He said that these increases don't count as taxes, but his characterization is hotly disputed.
 * Romney approved $128 million in tax changes such as such as sales tax from purchases on the Internet (internet sales tax) and raised another $181 million in additional business taxes in the next two years; businesses called these changes tax increases, but Romney defended them as the elimination of "loopholes." This article should not take a position on whether changing th law to force businesses to pay more taxes counts as a "tax increase" (as the businesses said) or as "closing loopholes" (as Romney said).
 * Romney raised hundreds of fees, including doubled fees for court filings, professional regulations, driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and firearm licenses, raising $500 million in the first year of the program. Does this count as "increases in the gun tax" or not?  This article should not decide.
 * Romney increased the state gasoline fee by 2 cents per gallon. Is this an "increase in gas taxes" or simply an increase in "gas fees"?  This article should not take a position.
 * Tuition at state colleges and universities increased 63% during the Romney governorship. This article should not decide wether this is a "tax on education" or not.
 * Romney signed legislation allowing local commercial property taxes to be raised, which resulted in $100 million more in property taxes from local business owners. This article shouldn't take a position on whether Romney should get credit for those tax increases.

2) "He also proceeded to end his term with a 1 billion dollar surplus(source: Mitt Romney Inc. website).
 * This claim is, at best, highly disputed. His successor claims that Romney left the state with a 1 billion dollar deficit.

3) "as well as lower taxes and a lower unemployment rate."(source: Mitt Romney Inc. website).
 * I don't see any source for this. Not even Romney claims that he ended his term with lower taxes.  The state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased from 10 percent to 10.6 percent of per capita income during Romney's governorship, according to analysis by the Tax Foundation.  The closest his website comes to saying that he lowered taxes is that "the state abolished a retroactive capital gains tax."  As explained in Governorship of Mitt Romney, this consisted of moving the effective date for a new capital gains tax from January 1, 2002 to January 1, 2003.  The legislature delaying a tax increase by one year at the beginning of his term would not cause him to end his term with lower taxes.

-Fagles 15:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That "deficit" is actually a forecasted budget deficit—Romney managed to balance the budget every year he was in office, according to the article you've provided, and the "deficit" is at least partly the responsibility of Romney's successor for restoring nearly half a billion dollars worth of programs Romney tried to cut. The Jade Knight 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Nearly everything written in that paragraph is 100% false yet apparently I can't delete it because it just gets restored. god this website is so worthless. The current "proof" that any of it is true comes from Romney for President Inc.
 * You may want to prove it's false. If you do that and it still gets restored, you can request the section be protected. Just because you don't know how the website works doesn't make it worthless. Antley 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Campaign websites are considered a reliable source. And could you sign your messages? Antley 20:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable only in the sense that "this is what he said".  Voice -of- All  18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Draft revision
The governorship section remains a mess.

''I've proposed a revision focusing on what I think most people will agree are the three most important aspects of his governorship: fiscal policy, the healthcare legislation, and same-sex marriage. It consists mainly of information copied from the Governorship of Mitt Romney article and significantly shortened. Please feel free to edit this proposed revision here on the talk page. If it gets a positive response I will move it to the article.''-Fagles 22:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Romney was sworn in as the 70th governor of Massachusetts on January 2, 2003.

Upon entering office, Romney faced a projected $3 billion deficit. Through revenue increases and spending cuts, he turned the deficit into a $700 million surplus by 2006. A $1.3 billion capital gains tax windfall and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2 billion. Romney raised various fees by $500 million per year, including doubled fees for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and firearm licenses. Romney increased the state gasoline fee by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue. Tuition at state colleges and universities increased 63% during the Romney governorship. Romney approved $128 million in additional tax revenue such as such as a sales tax for purchases on the Internet and raised another $181 million in additional business taxes in the next two years; businesses called these changes tax increases, but Romney defended them as the elimination of "loopholes." He also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns, leading towns to increase property taxes to make up for lost funding for schools and police. According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, the state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased from 10 percent to 10.6 percent of per capita income during Romney's governorship.

On April 12, 2006, Romney signed legislation that mandates nearly all Massachusetts residents to obtain health insurance coverage or elso face a fine. The bill establishes means-tested state subsidies for people without adequate employer insurance and who make below an income threshold, by directing funds designated to compensate for the health costs of the uninsured. He vetoed 8 sections of the health care legislation, including an employer assessment  and provisions providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid. The legislature overrode all eight vetoes.

Romney opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions while supporting domestic partnerships. At the beginning of his term, he opposed a constitutional amendment amendment, pushed by the Democratic legislative leadership, that would have banned same-sex marriage and outlawed all domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2003, Romney criticized the decision as harming children. Romney instructed town clerks not to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples not planning to move to Massachusetts. He urged the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment. In 2004 Romney reluctantly backed a state constitutional amendment that would have both banned gay marriage and created civil unions, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts. In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, stating that the amendment confused voters who oppose both gay marriage and civil unions. In June 2005, Romney endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would have banned gay marriage and make no provisions for civil unions.

On December 14, 2005, Romney announced that he would not seek re-election for a second term as governor, fueling speculation about a run for the White House in 2008. Romney's term ended January 4, 2007. Romney filed papers to establish a formal exploratory presidential campaign committee the next to last day in office as governor.

= Questions? Ask them through Wikinews =

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.


 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
 * n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or [mailto:nicholasmoreau@gmail.com e-mail me].

Thanks, Nick

Lack of sources in Governorship section
There is a huge lack of sources in the governorship section (only two or three, I think). I added an tag until we decide what to do. Joseph Antley 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * many references have now been added. I think the tag should be removed.

Father's place of birth
The fact that George Romney was born in Mexico is entirely appropriate to the page on George Romney, and is listed there. But to insert "Mexican-born" into the article on Mitt only inflames the passions of those who have an agenda when it comes to immigration. Mitt was born in Michigan. What else to you need to know? If you want to know about his father, go to his father's page. El Ojo 21:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC) El Ojo
 * Agreed. And I moved this section to the bottom. Joseph Antley 21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the change. Turtlescrubber 03:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

=Milton vs. Mitt=

Mitt Romney's full name is Willard Mitt Romney not Willard Milton Romney (as the article states). The name Mitt did come from a relative named Milton, who was referred to as "Mitt," but Mitt Romney's middle name is only Mitt. I am changing the article to reflect this.

Ultra High-net worth individual (UHNWI)
Mitt is a UHNWI (ultra-high net worth individual) as he's worth >$30M. This is the top .007% of people in North America (18,700 people), and he's near the top of this list (likely 0.001%, but I can't find any references to this). I think this is notable enough to include in the top of the article. Pro crast in a tor 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * His estimated net-worth is already included. I suppose you want to include his being in the top x% of Americans when it comes to wealth.  If you can find a source which would back it up, be bold and add it in.   New   England  Review Me! 22:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering he did not even come close to the Forbes 400 list of the richest people in the U.S., in my opinion his personal finances do not belong at the top of the article. His net worth is already mentioned in the body. Alanraywiki 22:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, will remove this from the lede paragraph, but will add the .007% to the business section. I looked at Kerry (worth $570M) and Schwartzenegger ($800M), and neither included this info in the top of the article. Pro crast in a tor 22:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This information was briefly blanked from the article by IP User:169.196.224.2. This IP is owned by Jefferies & Company, Inc. of Los Angeles according to ARIN. Jeffries & Company has donated $2,300.00 to Mitt Romney's campaign according to the Federal Elections Commission. Fascinating... Eleland 18:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Who Deleted my Josh Romney section and why?
I made a Josh Romney section, and someone deleted it. I think this man is noteworthy, he's been in the news because of his possible congressional run. I made section, citing my source as Deseret Moring News, and it was deleted, without explanation. Also, I put up a picture of Josh Romney on his wikipedia page, and that was deleted as well. I know people want to merge these articles, so why do you want Josh Romney not under the Mitt Romney page? Who keeps doing this and why? I feel as if my work is going down the drain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooman456 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)