Talk:Mitt Romney/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 18:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to put this article on hold. Here's the template with my assessment of the article.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * My concern with MOS is in "Words to avoid" with this phrase in section 1: "George Romney was a popular governor." If this is based on the fact that he was reelected twice, it might be best to let that fact speak for itself.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * In the paragraph about the 1994 campaign against Ted Kennedy, the article asserts that Kennedy "was more vulnerable than usual" because of the Republican resurgence and the William Kennedy Smith trial. I checked the Washington Post reference, and I couldn't find where those factors were cited by Ruth Marcus as factor's for Kennedy's vulnerability.  I couldn't check the Boston Globe source because it was behind a paywall and ProQuest did not have that article.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article, at the time of review, contains about 50 to 60 kilobytes of prose. It is too long.  The biography sections seem to be perfect candidates for article splitting and coverage in the summary style.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The biography paragraphs have relatively few paragraphs. Do you know of any suitable images that could go in the section?  (The ones that are already there look fine to me.)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article is placed on hold to address the concerns above, especially article length. This article was reviewed March 3, 2011; it will be reexamined in seven days, on March 10, 2011 for compliance with the criteria.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article is placed on hold to address the concerns above, especially article length. This article was reviewed March 3, 2011; it will be reexamined in seven days, on March 10, 2011 for compliance with the criteria.

RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 05:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the review and your comments.


 * Regarding the 1b point, I have changed "George Romney was a popular governor who was elected for three two-year terms; ..." to "George Romney was re-elected twice; ..." What I had wasn't even correct, because his third term was for four years (although he resigned after two to become Secretary of HUD).


 * Regarding the 2c point, the Boston Globe article is not behind a paywall for me ... I wonder why the difference. Anyway, this whole installment of their series on Kennedy talks about the troubles in his private life in the late 1980s through 1991 and the Palm Beach case.  Then it talks about his marriage to Victoria Reggie, and says "With his personal life stabilized, Kennedy still had work to do to restore his political life." and "Kennedy's early 20-point lead had shrunk to practically zero. The 25th anniversary of Chappaquiddick had been widely noted. Joan Kennedy was seeking a new divorce settlement. Old demons were proving hard to escape." and "Now, with Republicans across the country poised to blow away the Democrats ...", all of which support the article text in question.  But I've also added this AP story from July 1994 as a contemporaneous source, that should be freely available and that covers much of the same ground.


 * More to come ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the 6b point, I would love to have some images of Romney in the earlier biographical sections. But I (and other editors before me) haven't found any that are free or public domain from before when he was governor.  (The Governorship of Mitt Romney article does have a few extra from that period.)  If you look at Mitt Romney in Commons, the vast majority of free images of him are from his previous run for president in 2007–2008.  I am hoping somebody will have a print photo from the 1994 campaign that they scan in and add, but it hasn't happened yet ...


 * Regarding the 3b point about article length, I understand your perspective but I have to respectfully disagree. The article is currently, per the User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js tool, 54 kB (8913 words) "readable prose size".  That's clearly within the usual WP:SIZE guidelines of 60 kB and 10,000 words, and still will be even after a "2012 presidential campaign" section is added.  Furthermore, the WP:SIZE limits are just guidance, not hard-and-fast limits, and the trend for GA/FA-level articles has been for them often to be longer.  If you look at User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, there are nearly 100 current FA articles longer than the 60 kB point (including seven over 90 kB!) and nearly 200 FA articles that are greater than or equal to the current Romney article in size.  Moreover, biographical subarticles per the summary style don't work.  By this I mean they get very, very small readership.  For example, in February 2011, Sarah Palin got 187,211 views while Early political career of Sarah Palin got only 428.  John McCain got 75,838 views while House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 got 621.  I could quote many more stats like these and have on many other Talk pages – regardless of subject or time period, biographical subarticles have a 100:1 readership ratio or worse compared with main articles.  In addition, biographical subarticles represent a lot of extra writing and maintenance work on the part of editors.  Material has to be added or removed in sync with the main article, deadlinks have to be resolved twice, and so forth.  Many editors ignore the subarticles – Talk:Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton is empty, for example, meaning extra work for the editors that do pay attention to them.  In sum, I don't think biographical subarticles are worthwhile for American politicians, except for presidential campaign subarticles and maybe for the occasional governorship or similar subarticle (see Category:Tenures in political office by individual for the lot), until and unless they are elected president.  Then all bets are off and subarticles do indeed need to come into being, to create space for the bulk of the article which will cover their presidency.  So if Romney gets elected, then this article should be broken up, but until then I think the current size is appropriate.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Article length
I have read your statement. My perspective comes from when I was reviewing the article. The biographical and business sections just seemed to be too lengthy compared to the paragraphs on his political career. (An estimate I made says that about one third of the prose is in the pre-political sections of the article.) My concern is that those sections seem to be giving inordinate detail completely out of proportion to their coverage in sources about Mitt Romney. The content is well-sourced, and so it should not be deleted. Rather, the important points (as determined by the sources) should remain in the article, while details can go in a sub-article. While the article's size does not imply that it must be split, its size is large enough to consider a split. Based on my reading of the article, I believe a split is in order for the above reasons.

You raised two concerns about splitting the article. The first is a lack of use or participation. It is not surprising that biographical sub-articles will have fewer views than the main articles. But honestly, the main article is more likely to serve a reader generally interested in the subject of the article. Only those who specifically want to know more about Palin's early political career need to examine the sub-article. People can get the basic facts about her early political career through the shortened paragraphs in the main article. As for participation, I don't see this as much of an issue. The talk page of an article I've been working on, Talk:Legends of the Hidden Temple, has not had any talk page discussions since September 2008 (apart from a second GA nomination and review), and I estimate the article has about 12000 monthly page views. It doesn't surprise me at all that a subarticle viewed by far fewer users wouldn't have any talk page discussions. Also, you raised the concern about having to duplicate the effort in updating the article. This is a relatively minor concern; I trust the regular editors who can summarize an entire article in a lead paragraph can also summarize subarticles within the main article and keep those in sync.

As part of criterion 3, I am required, as a reviewer, to judge whether the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail." The article suggests adopting and properly using summary style as a means of fulfilling this criterion. Since, in my judgment, the article goes into unnecessary detail about Mitt Romney's pre-political life and career, I would (unfortunately) have to fail this article in its current state. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 03:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, needless to say, I have a different view :-) First, this is meant to be a biography of the person's whole life, not just the thing they are doing now.  It's quite possible that if Romney loses this presidential election, he'll be viewed in the final analysis as more of a business/executive figure than a political one.   He didn't hold a political office until age 55; I don't see spending a third of the article on his life up until age 55 as being unreasonable.  And these things are important especially for someone who later becomes a politician – think of all the ink that's been spilled about Obama's unusual childhood or GWB's wandering years.  And they are important in Romney's eyes too, as much of his campaign pitches have always been about how his successes in business and the Olympics would prepare him for performing in political office.  Regarding "inordinate detail completely out of proportion to their coverage in sources about Mitt Romney", since there are no real biographies of Romney out, the gold standard is the seven-part Boston Globe series on him.  Here's how the parts break down:
 * 1 - early life to middle of France mission, with long sidebar on mission and sidebar on draft
 * 2 - more mission, family's historical background (which is covered in the George W. Romney article, not here)
 * 3 - business career at Bain & Company and Bain Capital, with sidebar on Harvard years
 * 4 - family life (a lot of which is not covered here), 1994 campaign
 * 5 - Olympics head, with sidebar on connections for campaign fundraising
 * 6 - campaign for governor, Governor
 * 7 - Governor, start of campaign for president
 * So the BG series is about two-thirds or more (depending upon exactly how you count it) about his pre-political career. Of course, if they were redoing it now, they'd have a part 8 about the 2008 campaign and maybe a part 9 about the period since then.  But still it would be at least half about his pre-political career.  Nor is the BG alone.  The New York Times has written at least four long profiles about his early life, business, and Olympics years, see current footnotes 20, 36, 38, and 63.  Indeed, I used the weighting from these sources to help determine how much relative space to give things.  So in summary I don't think the amount of space given to his pre-political career is unwarranted.
 * Will respond to your other points in the morning. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Will respond to your other points in the morning. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding viewership, yes clearly a main article will always more views than a subarticle. But it would maybe be on a 10:1 scale, not the 100:1 to 500:1 ratio that we see with biographical subarticles.  One cause is that the main links, usually appearing between section headers and text, aren't very visible to users.  But the main cause is that search engines don't find the biographical subarticles.  They do for other examples of summary style; for example, Google (and Bing) searches for, , and all return the associated WP article in the top or second spot of results.  Same with your example of .  Now let's say someone wants to know more about John McCain's time in Vietnam as a naval aviator and POW.  A Google search for (angle brackets to indicate not quoted) returns the John McCain article first ... but it really should return Early life and military career of John McCain, an FA article that includes far more detail about this subject than the main article ... but that isn't there until the second page of hits, which few users will bother to look at.  (Bing does the same with the main article, but is somewhat better with the subarticle, putting it at the bottom of the first page of hits.)  Now let's say someone wants the real deal on Sarah Palin's time as a politician in Wasilla, one of the more controversial periods of her life.  The Google search for again puts Sarah Palin at the top, but Early political career of Sarah Palin, which has a much more thorough description of the topic, never appears at all (at least not in the first sixteen pages of hits that I checked).  No wonder it only gets a handful of readers.  (Bing, on the other hand, does much better, placing the subarticle second ... go Bing!  I use it a lot because I love its main page images, but it still has a small share of the search pie compared to Google.)


 * Regarding the duplicative effort of maintaining main and subarticles, I know whereof I speak :-) When the John McCain article got broken up into pieces four years ago, following a discussion similar to this one, I took the biographical subarticles very seriously.  I took one to FA and two to GA, which I think is more than anyone else has done with biographical subarticles (although it's a little hard to check).  The readership has been small – Senate career of John McCain, 2001–present got a measly 416 views last month, for example – and it is rarely edited by anyone other than me and the bots.  I constantly have to take edits to the main article and move them to the subarticle.  My example of the talk page for Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton wasn't meant to say that Talk page activity can serve as a proxy for viewership, because you're right that it doesn't ... but I know the viewership of the page (another one that I'm the only editor on) is low by that stats tool, 516 views last month compared to 134,563 for the main article.  That's a 260:1 ratio, very typical.  It's a lot of work to maintain parallel articles like this, for very little payback.


 * Another way of looking at this is that anything moved out of this article into an "early life and business career of Mitt Romney" article would be effectively deleted for 99.5% of the readers. If I thought there there was anything in the current article that is so unimportant that only 1 in 200 readers should see it, I never would have put it in this article to begin with!  If you can point out some of the things that you think are that unimportant, I will be glad to give them a fresh second look and re-evaluate.


 * Finally, I will say that based upon a lot of experience I've had doing this, length is a friend of stable articles for controversial political subjects. With shorter articles, you get a lot of "How dare the article not mention A!  It must be biased!" and "You include B but not C!  You must be biased!" type criticisms.  When you include A, B, and C, everybody gets to see what they expect to be there (obviously, A B and C all have to be well-sourced and handled fairly).  If you go back over the Talk:Mitt Romney archives, you'll see that the article is a lot more stable and peaceful than it was at the comparable time four years ago in the previous election cycle.  (The recent flurry of Talk page discussions, while it may look like a lot, has mostly been focused on just the first paragraph of the lead and a couple of paragraphs in the "Political positions" section; the rest of the article has been very stable.)  A similar calmedness can be seen at the Talk:Ted Kennedy archives after I rewrote that whole article, even though the revised article got its highest viewership ever when he died.  There are likely several reasons for the relative calm in these cases, but I would strongly argue that the more comprehensive nature of the articles now compared to then is one of them.  I don't want to lose that ...   Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO, the key point here is that he did not run for political office until 47 years old, and he had a successful life and business career before that. So, it seems appropriate to devote as much space to it as this article currently does.  In other words, I don't think the article is unfocused in that respect quite yet.  But, if the sections on the pre-political career get longer, I would support starting a sub-article and summarizing it here.  Maybe call the sub-article "Early life and business career of Mitt Romney".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And he went back to his business career for 8 years after that, until assuming his first political office at age 55. In any case, I have no intentions of lengthening any of the pre-political sections.  If some significant new biographical material came out I'd have to look at it, but I think that unlikely given that the press pretty thoroughly reported those parts of Romney's life back in 2007.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I do see your point about Romney's business career. Its coverage certainly seems appropriate.  However, I still think the "Youth and early education" and "Missionary work, later education, marriage, and family" sections are overly lengthy and could be consolidated with the details spun off into another article.  Is it really necessary to have twelve paragraphs about those two subjects (about as much as his 2008 Presidential campaign bid), including paragraphs entirely devoted to childhood pranks of Romney and Romney's time at BYU?  Thus, I still don't think the article meets the focused coverage criterion.  If you want, I can have a second reviewer examine the issue.  RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The high school paragraph just had one (admittedly longish) sentence about pranks; the rest is about academics, athletics and girlfriends, which are pretty standard subjects to cover in a biography. I've moved the specifics about the pranks into an existing 'Note', to reduce the main text, and I've moved what's left into the middle of the paragraph, so that it doesn't look like the topic sentence.


 * I disagree about the BYU material. The late 1960s were one of the most politically and socially turbulent times in American history, and a reader can easily draw a direct line from Romney's experiences during them (sheltered at home, challenged with hostility abroad) to his strong emphasis on American exceptionalism today.  Many other students of that era took a different path, and would never again view America quite the same.  Ditto the draft; this was a crucible of the time, and every WP political bio of people from this period details what the subject did regarding the draft (see the articles on Joe Biden, Rudy Giuliani, Dick Cheney, etc).


 * These sections may be a bit longer than in comparable GA/FA-level articles, but I believe that is due to his having had a very prominent father (thus ending up doing campaign and other work that most subjects don't during their youth; the relationship with his father is also a theme that runs throughout the article) and due to his missionary experience (which for many Mormons is both a very difficult and very defining time in their lives; and Romney's mission was especially eventful). Again, the Boston Globe and New York Times and other sources give a lot of weight to this period, and I don't think it's unreasonable for this article too.  Also note that what many WP articles describe in a separate "Personal life" section further down has been included in these two sections early on, because in Romney's case his story doesn't make sense unless chronologically integrated.  So I don't think that the depth of coverage here is that unusual for GA/FA-levels, just that there's somewhat more to cover.


 * As for bringing in a second opinion, that's your decision as reviewer, but I certainly wouldn't object. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I decided to take another look at this question, by a comparative approach. I looked at several other articles, all of which are GA and all of which are on a comparable subject (BLP of American politicians who ran for president but didn't make it) and which are written at a roughly comparable level of detail overall. I added in GA articles for a longtime member of Congress and a Supreme Court justice just for a little variety. I then measured the size of those articles' text that was equivalent to the two Mitt Romney sections still in question, that is, the text covering early life through end of education as well as that covering marriage and beginning of family. (I measured the Mitt article from before my last edit that moved out some of the pranks material, so as to measure what you have been objecting to.) The results are all from using the Dr pda/prosesize.js tool against a "show preview" of the edited portion of an article. Here are the results:

So there are a lot of GA articles that have lengthy sections for this part of a person's life. None of them has an "Early life of ..." subarticle and I still don't want to create one for this article for all the reasons I stated before. However, I have to concede that the Mitt Romney text for this portion is longer than all the others, and there's no good reason for that. I believe it should be at the upper end of the range, because of the 'father' and 'missionary' factors I described above, but it really shouldn't be beyond the range.

So, if I can edit these two sections down until they are in the 1300–1400-ish words area instead of 1800 words, would that be sufficient to resolve your objection to this aspect of the article? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good plan. Is that something you can do right away WTR, or would you recommend another GAN later?  If the former, then go ahead.  I don't know what Jaguar3's opinion will be, but I expect Jaguar3 would be able to decide more easily if he sees the results.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm doing it now. The goal is to achieve success on this GAN, not do another one.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can find 400 or so words to cut that don't compromise the coverage of Romney's early life, then I think that such changes would certainly satisfy the criterion. Otherwise, if it's impossible to cut such an amount of text without glossing over important events in Romney's early life, I think that a subarticle is warranted.  RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 17:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now taken the size of the first two sections down to 8558 B (1415 words) "readable prose size". Nothing of real substance was removed altogether; instead, a couple of items were moved into Notes (especially the details of the auto accident), a couple of items were relocated to a section later in the article and given a new context; and a lot of reductions in excess verbiage were made.  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks "good" to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Politician
It should be easy enough to phrase the first paragraph without the word "politician" which often has negative connotations (and is not used in the Obama lead, for example). According to one prominent online dictionary, the word often means "a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted during GA1, several FAs use the word politician in the lead sentence (e.g., Wendell H. Ford, Terry Sanford, Sam Loxton, Richard Cordray), and in this case, I think its use is critical since his work over the past decade has been more that of a politician (see politician) than a businessman. I also don't like the choppiness of having an entire sentence to convey his party status: "He is a member of the Republican Party."


 * It seems like the first sentence of the lead keeps changing, so I'm hoping we can get consensus here (quickly, given GAN) regarding something that can stick for a while. Here is what I suggest:


 * Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and Republican politician who was the 70th Governor of Massachusetts (2003 to 2007) and a candidate in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. He is a likely candidate in the 2012 presidential election. —Eustress talk 19:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and Republican politician who was the 70th Governor of Massachusetts (2003 to 2007) and a candidate in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. He is a likely candidate in the 2012 presidential election. —Eustress talk 19:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, the word "politician" is often pejorative (I linked to a dictionary). FWIW, Romney himself recently did an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN saying that he's not a politician.  In any event, the fact that he's a political figure, or a politician, or whatever, should be abundantly clear from the fact that he was a governor, a past presidential candidate, and a likely future presidential candidate.  So, the word "politician" is somewhat superfluous here, and not critical at all.


 * If we don't want the party affiliation to be in a separate sentence, then we could do this: "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman, and a Republican who was the 70th Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. He was a candidate in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, and is a likely candidate in the 2012 presidential election."


 * Okay?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I want some kind of noun to describe his career in politics (for syntax' sake), but there appears to be a problem with "politician," so let's compromise with "political figure." Also, I find some comma insertion flawed; i.e., you should only separate independent clauses with commas (see compound sentence).


 * So how is this: "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and Republican political figure who was the 70th Governor of Massachusetts (2003 to 2007). He was a candidate in the 2008 U.S. presidential election and is a likely candidate in the 2012 presidential election." —Eustress talk 21:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, "political figure" can have negative connotations too.. I would have no problem with this: "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and leading [or prominent] figure in the Republican Party.  He was the 70th Governor of Massachusetts (2003 to 2007), was a candidate in the 2008 U.S. presidential election and is a likely candidate in the 2012 presidential election."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see "political figure" anywhere in that source, and the suggested counterproposals ("leading," "prominent") are POV. Can you please compromise -- "political figure." If not, what do others think? —Eustress talk 00:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the URL I gave, the last two words in the URL are "political figure". I doubt that "leading figure" is POV, and certainly not "prominent figure".  The same is true of someone like Harry Reid or Hillary Clinton or even James Carville; they're all prominent figures in the Democratic Party.  If you want another adjective, try "influential figure".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm okay with "politician", no "politician", or "political figure". I see this as a distinction without a difference, and I think few if any readers will even realize which formulation we've chosen much less be influenced by it. I am not okay with "leading [or prominent] figure in the Republican Party", because I think that's debatable on factual grounds (Romney has never had a party leadership position and I can think of twenty Republicans more identified as Republicans than him). But I have to say that I think Anythingyouwant's chief argument is kind of silly; "lawyer" also has a bad connotation to much of the public, but does that mean the word should be taken out of the first sentence of the Alan Dershowitz, David Boies, et al articles? In terms of the overall first paragraph phrasing, I like Eustress's second proposal above. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's go with Eustress's second phrasing (political figure). Incidentally, Romney is a lawyer, but that should not go in the first paragraph for obvious reasons.  Also, I doubt there are dictionaries that explicitly give a disparaging definition for "lawyer" as they do for "politician".  Haley Barbour says he hit the trifecta: lawyer, lobbyist, AND politician.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the change. I think it's redundant and a little odd to refer to him in the first paragraph as a "political figure", so I'll reserve the right to support a change later on.  One definition of the word "political" is "Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives". I don't think it's appropriate or necessary for Wikipedia to include connotations like that, but the current language seems slightly better than slapping the "politician" label on him in the lead paragraph.


 * Eustress and WTR, isn't there any adjective that would be an acceptable substitute for "political"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Political" as an adjective often has a pejorative meaning for those who aren't politicians, as in "I can't stand my boss, he's so political" or "She turned the PTA into something totally political". Thus, our American Heritage Dictionary (Second College Edition, from 1982) entry for "politician" separates out the "One who holds or seeks political office" definition from the "One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by cunning or dishonest means" definition.  The one you quoted at the beginning conflates these, I think unwisely.  In any case, Romney could fairly claim not to be a politician through 2002, even with his run for office in 1994.  But since then, he's been a full-time politician.  Especially in the last three years, when instead of getting a job back in the business world or elsewhere, he essentially has just had the job of doing what it takes to prepare to run for president again.  But back to my basic point, readers are going to gloss over the word "politician" to focus on the high-value facts of "governor", "ran for president", "running again".  I've read scores of political BLP leads on WP and I couldn't tell you whether a single one has "politician" in the first sentence or not, even for the articles I've worked on!  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this matter is now resolved. —Eustress talk 21:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've commented before that this article is strongly titled pro-Romney. This horror about referring to him as a "politician" because some people might consider it pejorative is another example.  The term is a very common way of referring to "political figures" who aren't currently holding public office.  Other unsuccessful 2008 candidates not now in office, such as Chris Dodd, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson, find this alleged pejorative in the opening sections of their articles.  Only when it comes to Romney do Wikipedia editors seem to think that we must bend over backward not to say anything that might give anyone the slightest negative impression of him.


 * Eustress, I do not agree with your concluding comment. The matter is not resolved. To treat Romney so much more solicitously than we treat other politicians is not NPOV. JamesMLane t c 16:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, the lead of Barack Obama does not pejoratively refer to him as a politician or as political. And it would be redundant given everything else the Obama lead says.  Why this article's lead does so is beyond me, and it's even more beyond me why this aspect of the present lead needs to be further accentuated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @James You appear to be assuming a lot of things. Do you have any Wikpipedia-valid, direct issue with the consensus; i.e., the use of "political figure?" —Eustress talk 17:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Anythingyouwant: If you will pardon me for quoting myself, "The term is a very common way of referring to 'political figures' who aren't currently holding public office." Last time I checked, Barack Obama was a current public officeholder.  If you think that comparisons with other articles are one appropriate consideration, then you should compare apples with apples and treat Romney like the out-of-office Democratic candidates that I listed and like the other people that Eustress listed. Furthermore, it is question-begging to say "pejoratively refer to him as a politician or as political" when the issue is whether "politician" is indeed pejorative.  I and others see it as a neutral description.  Some people may dislike politicians, but as Wasted pointed out, some people dislike lawyers (just as some dislike Republicans and some dislike Mormons).  We can't make our primary focus the effort to shield Romney from any negative opinion that some reader might draw from the facts.  (The same would apply to "lawyer", i.e., the possibility of negative reactions is not a reason to exclude or downplay the information.  The difference is that Romney, although holding a law degree, hasn't practiced law, so that's not an important part of his bio.  As Wasted pointed out, however, being a politician has been his primary activity for the last few years.)


 * Eustress: I was assuming that Anythingyouwant's stated concerns and motives were his actual concerns and motives. His argument was that "politician" was pejorative, and had "negative connotations" -- in other words, his concern is that some readers might think less favorably of Romney if he were described this way.  I took issue with that emphasis.  Frankly, I don't see how this is within shouting distance of a violation of WP:AGF.  Furthermore, I noted that this latest fuss is part of a general pro-Romney slant in the article.  Neutrality is certainly a Wikipedia-valid consideration, and treating Romney like other bio subjects who are similarly situated is one aspect of neutrality.


 * This beginning from Eustress near the top of the thread is excellent: "Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and Republican politician...." That immediately puts the reader in the picture about the highlights of Romney's bio, so that the reader can decide whether to continue.  Using the familiar term "politician" is the approach that's most helpful to the reader.  To me, at least, that's also a Wikipedia-valid issue.  JamesMLane t c 20:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question: Do you have any issue with the consensus; i.e., the use of "political figure?" It appears that you, like me, feel that "politician" and "political figure" are essentially interchangeable. If another editor has a problem with one of the terms, let's just be use the other one and move on. We are charged to not disrupt Wikipedia solely to make a point. Thank you for your consideration. —Eustress talk 20:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * James, my dictionary doesn't suggest that the words in question are any less applicable to an officeholder.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I checked the leads of the other Republican presidential maybe-contenders who used to hold elected office but don't right now. Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Buddy Roemer, Rudy Giuliani, Jon Huntsman, Jr., and Sarah Palin   all have "politician" in the first sentence.  Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum don't.  Maybe this should be raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government so that it is handled consistently across the board.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Across the board would mean Democrats (e.g. Obama) as well as Republicans. And it means present presidential maybe-contenders as well as other prominent political figures.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Obama is a red herring. Checking back through McKinley, none of the presidential articles (*) have "politician" in the first sentence; they just state that so-and-so was the nth president and maybe include something else almost equally major (Taft chief justice, Ike 5-star general).  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)  (*) Of course, in WP nothing is ever fully consistent:  GHWB said "politician".  I've removed it.
 * While you may wish to make this matter into a red herring by editing the GHWB article, there is no principled reason to use "politician" or "political" in connection with Romney but not Obama, AFAIK.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To say that there's no principled reason for this distinction is to treat editorial judgment as equivalent to counting beans. It's like saying that there's no principled reason for omitting "attorney" from the first graf of the Obama bio, given that it's in the first sentence of the Oscar Goodman bio.  Both Obama and Goodman got law degrees, practiced law for a while, and were elected to public office.  The difference is that, in Goodman's case, it's a much bigger part of his bio, because it's more of his life and more related to his prominence, and also because being a mayor doesn't overshadow a legal career the way being President does.  In Romney's case, he doesn't have a Presidential-level bio highlight that so thoroughly overshadows his principal occupation of the last few years, namely running for office or preparing to run.  That's why "politician" (but not "attorney") belongs in his introductory description but not Obama's.  Or do you think that Obama and Romney should both be prominently described as lawyers, there being no principled reason to treat them and Goodman differently? JamesMLane t c 05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) Neither the Romney nor Obama articles should be changed to emphasize or deemphasize that they're lawyers. And neither article should say in the first paragraph whether they're "political" or not. The Romney lead already says that he's been running for office or preparing to run, so saying that he's political adds nothing. But it is slightly less pejorative than saying in the first sentence that he's a politician.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Eustress, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I said that I didn't consider the matter resolved.  I pointed out that numerous people who are similarly situated are described as "politician", that Romney is not, that the stated reason for the difference is the fear that "politician" might be pejorative and would have "negative connotations" for Romney, and that I thought NPOV called for treating similarly situated bio subjects similarly unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise.  So, yes, I have an issue with the use of "political figure".  (Is there a consensus?  Something like two in favor, one acquiescing, one opposed -- bickering about whether to use that word doesn't matter, given that even a clear consensus can later be reversed.)  Wasted's typically thorough research has strengthened my opposition.


 * You're right that there's some interchangeability. To my mind, however, "political figure" moves somewhat away from electoral politics.  You could plausibly use "political figure" for someone who'd never run for elective office -- an advisor like Karl Rove, or a party leader like Joe Andrew, or possibly even a political appointee like Robert Gates.  This term obscures the fact that Romney, like any number of other people cited by Wasted and myself, was the actual candidate.


 * Because the term is somewhat ambiguous, we might as well help the reader out by wikilinking out. Oh my -- the wikilink redirects to "Politician", thus bolstering your argument for interchangeability.  I'll go ahead and wikilink it while I wait for an explanation of why Romney is treated differently from so many other politicians.  (For my taste, the explanation should take a form other than "We don't want people to form a negative opinion about Romney.") JamesMLane t c 05:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I decided to get more data points. I looked at all 50 articles for the currently sitting U.S. governors. Of them, 20 have "politician" in the first sentence and 30 do not. I found no pattern as to how the decision was made – it doesn't seem to correlate to party, length of service, length of career in politics, other offices held, or anything else. I also saw no signs that when it was used it was intended as a pejorative. It was simply that some editors thought the right way to start the article was to state occupation and position (some of the uses combined "politician" with "laywer", "businessman", "doctor", whatever) and some thought the right way was just to state position.

I looked at the articles for the last 10 Speakers of the House: 7 have "politician", 3 don't.  Didn't know what to make of that. I looked at the articles for British prime ministers, going back to Churchill: 10 use "politician", 3 don't.  That kind of surprised me, since it's the opposite of U.S. presidents. Maybe it's due to the parliamentary system having a different feel to it.

I decided to look at rest of the presidents. I found that Arthur and Pierce also used "politician" in the first sentence and, despite my innocuous edit for consistency having apparently triggered a minor edit war at GHWB last night, decided to change them, again for consistency at least among presidents. I found that William Henry Harrison also used "politician", but decided to leave that one alone as a special case, since he was in office for such a short time. Then when I got back to the founders, the whole game changed, since being president wasn't the most important thing they did. So a use in a first sentence like "James Madison, Jr. (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836) was an American politician and political philosopher who served as the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817) and is considered one of the Founding Fathers of the United States." makes sense to me.

So what did I learn from all this? That I can see no clear rationale why "politician" is used or not, but that when it is used, it clearly isn't meant as a pejorative. And that WP is a marvel of inconsistency; in addition to this usage difference, I saw vast differences in the rest of first paragraphs and in the size and nature of contents of lead sections altogether. And I didn't see a single use of "political figure" that I can remember, so the Romney article is now blazing a new path ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well WTR, you've deliberately scoured Wikipedia to make sure that all the president articles use the same language as the Obama article, but different language from the Romney language. If you have a change of heart, and edit the Romney article as you have edited the president articles, then that would be an improvement.  Otherwise, please let's leave this aspect of the Romney article as-is (it's no more unusual than giving equal weight to changes of position versus changes in rhetorical emphasis).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Anything, I don't understand why you have this Obama Obama Obama fixation. You seem to think that the only relevant comparison is that between Romney and Obama, and that hundreds of other Wikipedia bios are utterly irrelevant.  Even as to those two, what principle are you applying?  Do you contend that, since both ran for elective office, the term "politician" must be applied to both or to neither, with no room for editorial judgment?  Crafting an informative introduction isn't so mechanistic.  Even if we omit unsuccessful presidential candidates like Romney and look just at modern Presidents, Bill Clinton spent a few years teaching law and after that was holding office or running for office just about continuously; Dwight D. Eisenhower never ran for anything until his Presidential campaign.  Surely it would be one reasonable view to say that Clinton was a politician and Eisenhower wasn't.  Is there some similar editorial judgment involved on your part in this case, something beyond the fear that some readers would think less of Romney if he were treated the same way as Dodd, Edwards, Gingrich, and Palin? JamesMLane t c 05:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a "fixation". See my previous comments above for more complete responses.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The more complete response I was looking for would be one in which you considered bio subjects other than Romney and Obama, or one in which you answered any of several specific questions that I've posed. JamesMLane t c 21:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already discussed generally applicable dictionary definitions. And, despite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I have also discussed other Wikipedia biographies such as that for GHWB.  James, your questions were based on the faulty assumption that I think the only relevant comparison is between Romney and Obama.  Let's let the dead horse rest in peace, okay?  Please?  I could name dozens of present and former and possible candidates whose Wiki bios don't begin by calling them a "politician", and dozens that do.  The lead paragraph of the present article is entirely accurate the way it is, and it is the result of discussion and compromise.  If you think that using the term "political figure" instead of "politician" slants the article toward Romney, please consider that using the term "political figure" instead of "asshole" could also be construed as slanting the article toward Romney.  This discussion has become long, and I hope we can bring it in for a landing, before we run out of fuel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Slanted?
James, I'm concerned about your comments above that there is a "general pro-Romney slant in the article". When you brought this up previously on the regular Talk page, it was in the context of the lead. This led to several changes, including putting the two presidential races in the first paragraph and putting his positions shift into the lead. (You also objected to going beyond "just the facts" in the lead, but that's more a stylistic/philosophical question than one of slant.)

So what still remains that is a problem in your eyes? I know that leads are ticklish and no one is ever fully happy with them, so I'm especially interested in whether you think the body of the article is slanted. If so, it'd help to have as many specific instances as possible, so that we have some concrete to work on. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we have already leaned too far to address James's concerns. That a political figure's "rhetorical emphasis" changes is trivial compared to an actual change of position.  Such changes of rhetorical emphasis for other political figures are not highlighted in their Wikipedia articles as far as I know, and yet they happen all the time, based on where and when the political figure speaks.  If you're speaking to a veterans' group you don't typically emphasize your position on littering, and when you address an environmental group you don't typically emphasize your position on night vision goggles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not the kind of rhetorical emphasis that Romney is characterized as changing. And I generally don't care what other articles do; I'm interested in making this the best short-length (compared to book-length) biographical account of Romney in existence. In any case, the handling of Romney's position shifts is always going to be the trickiest part of this article to navigate. I'm interested in knowing whether James has objections in other areas as well.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There's probably no politician (other than a few diehard Libertarians or Communists) who's been completely consistent throughout his or her life. The difference is that, in Romney's case, the accusation of flip-flopping was an important criticism of him in the 2008 campaign.  A goodly part of the Republican base didn't trust him, even though he was saying the right things in 2008, because of their impression that he had tacked left in earlier years when running in liberal Massachusetts.  That argument is more important in his bio than in that of many others.  (In fact, for the same reason, it might make sense to mention in the introductory section that Romney's presidential run was hampered by anti-Mormon prejudice.  There's good evidence that that was also a significant factor.)


 * I find it amusing that Anythingyouwant launches a pre-emptive strike by saying that "we've" gone too far to accommodate me. (Hey, I'm part of the we!)  AYW, what specific changes do you see as "leaning" at all, let alone leaning "too far"?  The introductory section still has too much of a cheerleading tone.  I agree that whether to put his undergraduate alma mater in the introductory section is more of a style question; I think that fact should be demoted, but its inclusion isn't related to NPOV.


 * Wasted, you're right that I haven't set forth much in the way of specifics. I just haven't had much free time for the last several days.  Because I haven't set forth the specifics, I also haven't put the POV tag on the article.  However much an article needs improvement, I consider it irresponsible to tag it without having stated specifics.  On the subject of Romney's position changes, though, I'll note that the relevant passage in the body of the text begins "Romney has been consistent in many of his political positions."  This sets the stage with Romney's (or his supporters') answer to the charge, and only then gets into the charge.  It's not logical.  It's like saying "Romney has never been accused of cheating on his taxes."  We don't say that because it's not an issue.  The pandering thing is an issue because of critics' charges, which should be stated first, then the response.  I'd suggest rearranging that passage, to put the charge first, but, in what could be seen as a pro-Romney change, recasting the discussion in the introductory section to make it less "Romney's tacked right" and more "Romney's presidential bid was hampered by the perception among many Republican conservatives that he had tacked right." I'll see what other specifics I can develop but I don't know how much I'll be able to do in the near future. JamesMLane t c 06:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding factors leading to Romney's loss in 2008, there are several that are commonly mentioned: low name recognition, inauthenticity/position shifts, lack of warmth/feel, and being a Mormon.  I haven't seen any study that tries to assess the relative weight of these; if you have, I'd be really interested to see it.  I've been holding off on citing the academic papers that delve into the Mormon factor because the results I've seen so far have been depressing and I was looking for one that said it wasn't much of a factor, but clearly that's not a good reason.  So I've introduced two of them into the article now, while I try to get a couple of others.  But until I see something that really rings as definitive, I'm reluctant to put any of these reasons for the loss into the lead.  Also, Romney didn't do that badly in the race; he effectively finished second, and certainly did better than Giuliani's and Thompson's flops.


 * Regarding the inclusion and placement of "Romney has been consistent in many of his political positions", this is partly the price of buying peace in the article. But in part I think it's worthwhile stating – yes, it's effectively true of virtually every politician, but since Romney has been pummeled on this aspect of his career, it bears more reminding in this article than many others.  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Re 2008, I haven't reviewed any academic studies. My impression was anecdotal, from newspaper accounts and from my occasional forays into right-wing message boards.  Maybe some LDS members would call me naive, but I was surprised by the extent of the anti-Mormon bigotry.  Some conservatives, disparaging Romney, were describing his church as "a cult" and denying that it was a Christian denomination (or grudgingly calling it "nominally Christian").  It's obvious that the religious right is much stronger in the Republican Party now than it was when George Romney ran.  I don't think he encountered this kind of hostility.


 * Re the treatment of the flip-flopping charge, I completely agree that the article should report how Romney and/or his supporters respond to the charge. What I'm criticizing is the stating of the response before the charge.  That's not the normal way of addressing such an issue.  I'm not familiar with the history here.  If you mean that the only way to buy peace was to go out of our way (yet again) to avoid writing anything that might lead anyone to form a negative opinion about Romney, then we should revisit the issue and instead approach it under NPOV standards. JamesMLane t c 05:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you read message boards at political sites, your faith in humanity will diminish at a rapid pace! No, George Romney didn't face much hostility on the religion issue (or on the birther issue, which people would go nuts over now).  1968 was a different electoral era, for good and for bad.  Were they active today, George Romney would be a man without a party and Richard Nixon might have trouble winning a single Republican primary. But put Hillary and Obama back in 1968 and they couldn't have gotten elected to anything either.


 * As for the article not having anything negative about Romney, I don't think you've absorbed the whole thing yet! Read the "2008 presidential campaign" and "Political positions" sections again.  Look for key words like "phony" and "opportunism" and the like.


 * The one thing that I've consciously held back on is that all the other 2008 Republican candidates disliked-unto-hated Romney. It's colorfully described in Game Change pp. 293–294 for those reading at home, and it's surfaced again recently in this Politico story.  It was a bit too gossipy and possibly dubious on BLP grounds.


 * PS Upon further thought, Tricky Dick would probably find a way in any era ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wasted, I'm a lawyer. My faith in humanity was pretty much shot long ago.  :)  Just to clarify, I'm not saying the article has nothing negative about Romney.  I'm saying that it's tilted his way.  Examples: Anythingyouwant has made clear that he wants to exclude "politician" because it might give some readers an unfavorable impression; the flip-flopping thing is too important to omit but it's presented in an unusual way, one that seems to have no justification except to pacify Romney supporters by giving the pro-Romney POV undue prominence.  Yes, the body of the article uses "phony" and "opportunism", but always in reporting opinions that are (properly) attributed to others.  By contraast, the laudatory summaries of his career in the introductory section are stated as facts. JamesMLane t c 21:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

About "politician" I can't do anything. I am okay with all three choices, and I am convinced from my examinations of other articles that the choice to use it or not has been one of editorial happenstance rather than pejorative or pov subtext.

Regarding the unusual way of presenting the position shifts, as a lawyer you should appreciate what I did. AYW was starting to add in positions that Romney hasn't changed on, and these could literally run into the hundreds (has always been in favor of tax abatements for hi-tech startups around Boston, has always supported family farming in Western Mass., has always been for human rights in Myanmar, etc etc). So I did what anyone would in court – I stipulated that "Romney has been consistent in many of his political positions" in the article body (see the comment in the text that follows that, which explicitly says "Stipulated") so that it could focus on the exceptions that have been the subject of attention.

Regarding the tilt you see, I think to a degree this is inevitable, given the nature of the positives and negatives involved and the WP rules and BLP considerations in particular. For example, I can write
 * "X was the founder of a firm that became highly profitable and one of the largest such firms in the nation."

because that is an objective fact but I cannot write
 * "During the 2008 campaign, X was a phony."

I can't even write
 * "During the 2008 campaign, X was perceived as a phony."

as that would draw "who" and "weasel" tags right away. I have to write it the way I did, as you agree.

Now imagine that these outcomes were reversed. I could still write
 * "X was CEO of an industry-leading firm that experienced prolonged heavy losses and entered bankruptcy followed by liquidation."

because again that is an objective fact, but I could not write
 * "During the 2008 campaign, X was a profile in political courage."

I would have to couch the latter by reporting opinions attributed to others.

So Romney 'lucks out' by having his positives be in the first class and his negatives be in the second. But it could just as well be the other way around. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Listed
After reviewing the article's changes, it appears to satisfy the good article criteria. Thanks again to the regular contributors who spent a lot of time working on the article to help improve it. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 22:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, and thanks for hanging in there with us ... Wasted Time R (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)