Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney/Archive 2

Or to the people
http://www.nhpr.org/romney-talks-10th-amendment “I believe in the constitution, by the way when the founders said we will have certain powers at the federal level but we’re going to preserve all those powers at the state level, that 10th amendment. That’s one that I don’t think Barack Obama has read. I know he went to law school: go read the 10th amendment, recognize the power of states.”


 * Has any RS covered this gutting of individual liberties? Hcobb (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the point made, still looking for a better source: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110517/LOCALVOICES03/110519927 Hcobb (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The recent WSJ editorial that torched Romney says of a statewide mandate: "Because the states have police powers under the Constitution, Mr. Romney's plan posed no legal problems. His blunder was his philosophy of government." Wasted Time R (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is that he's out of sync with even the Tenthers. They point to OTTP and proclaim man as sovereign, while he's a pure state's righter. Under the church of Romneyism, man is a slave to the states. Hcobb (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suspect that among Tenthers there is a fairly wide range of opinion about how strong states' powers should be. 00:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Add position on global warming/climate change, particularly Global warming mitigation.
Add position on global warming/climate change, particularly Global warming mitigation, per Talk:Mitt_Romney 99.19.46.246 (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of his positions on AGW are included in Political positions of Mitt Romney, but feel free to augment that section if he has more positions (always a possibility with Romney). JamesMLane t c 19:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this the preferred location for this information, any opinions?  97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is more on Talk:Mitt Romney # Climate change mitigation / Adaptation to global warming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.47.119 (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn`t ``To curb global warming`` be a wikilink to Climate change mitigation?
? 166.249.103.124 (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. 99.181.157.189 (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Reproductive rights -- ordering of information
The current section starts out by highlighting a quotation from 2005, moves on to 2007-08, then in the same paragraph cuts back to 1994; next it goes to 2002 and 2004, then skips his first presidential campaign to give information about his second. This is probably a result of the wiki process of incremental additions of information. I propose to re-order the section along largely chronological lines, but with a subsection for "Federalism" to address the distinction between federal actions and state-level actions, and with none of Romney's positions being given special prominence by highlighting in a quotation box. Does anyone see a problem with this? JamesMLane t c 21:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it should be straight chronological, with no subsections. The federalism question is part of the overall debate (should the decision be made at the federal, state, or individual level?), not separate.  I agree that the quote box should go.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that federalism is part of the overall abortion debate, but abortion is part of the overall social policy debate, which is part of the overall political debate. Headings and subheadings help each reader find what he or she wants.  Some people consider the federal-state issue an important distinction here -- for example, I've seen the view that Roe v. Wade outlines a good model state statute but shouldn't be imposed federally.  The subsection will help those people find Romney's comments on federalism without having to wade through 17 years of evolution of his overall position.  Meanwhile, the more I look at the quotation box the more it irks me, so I'll delete that now. JamesMLane t c 06:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Military Spending Levels Section
How it currently reads:

"Romney wishes to increase the size of the military by at least 100,000 troops. Romney has expressed concern over the growing suppression of democracy in Russia. He has supported dialogue and efforts to establish cooperation with the Muslim world to fight the war on terror. Romney has proposed a non-confrontational peaceful effort to welcome democracy into the Middle East."

These three sentences strung together into one paragraph seems a bit silly. I skimmed across it and did a double take: "WTF? Did I just read he wants to raise 100k troops to work with Muslims to combat the terrorist suppression of democracy in Russia?!?"

That could be more my problem and not the paragraph's problem, but we do seem to have one sentence related to "military spending levels" followed by two sentences not directly about spending levels. Earthpig (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * sofixit Wasted Time R (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Child protection
i removed the child protection section for two reasons. Firstly, per WP:Verifiability sources need to able to be verified, but both sources are unverifiable, both on google and the references section. Secondly, one of the links is dangerous, because when you click on the tab your computer freezzes. This happened twice to me now. Dont revert unless you have resolved these two problems. Pass a Method  talk  19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed one source by using the Internet Archive, I fixed another by going to a different page within C-SPAN, and I added a new newspaper source. So the section is back in the article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Those two references are not reliable. Do not revert unless you get some reliable sources. Pass a Method   talk  17:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What is unreliable about this newspaper article that I added as a source (see the sidebar in it)? Why is Romney's own website (no longer a deadlink, because found in the Internet Archive) not a reliable source as to Romney's own position?  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The first link is a non-notable regional newspaper. The second link is a wp:primary source. Neither are reliable enough. Pass a Method   talk  08:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There are ten other places in the article where MittRomney.com is used as a source, and four other places where CSPAN is used (which you also evidently don't approve of). Why haven't you removed all of the material associated with those cites too?  Why only this section?  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The other areas where MittRomey.com is used has reliable sources to back up the claims. This section does not. Pass a Method   talk  11:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's true of a few of them, but footnotes 45, 51, 53, 120, 151, 180, and 201 all represent single-sourcing to MittRomney.com. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on footnote 53 which should probably be deleted. But the other ones either have other references in the sub-section, or in the case of footnote 201 we can easily find other references i.e. . Pass a Method   talk  13:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-neutral intro

 * ''His numerous policy reversals have been noted by commentators from across the political spectrum, and some high-profile conservatives have questioned his commitment to conservative principles. Because of his inconsistent policy positions, he has often been compared to John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate accused of "flip-flopping" during the 2004 presidential campaign.

I've removed this material from the intro. It is a very one-sided criticism of the subject's political views that is sourced to opinions pieces. None of the similar articles in Category:Political positions of United States presidential candidates, 2012 have a polemical introduction. This material might be suitable to the article on Romney's campaign.  Will Beback   talk    20:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well-spoken and well-done. Hat-tip for your wisdom/excellence, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with removal. "Show, don't tell" applies here.  If the positions changes have been so bad, that'll be apparent in the individual issue sections.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Government mandate to teach certain ethnic groups not to have sex
http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/22/se.02.html When you have 40 percent of kids being born out of wedlock, and among certain ethnic groups the vast majority being born out of wedlock, you ask yourself, how are we going to have a society in the future? Because these kids are raised in poverty in many cases, they're in abusive settings. The likelihood of them being able to finish high school or college drops dramatically in single-family homes. And we haven't been willing to talk about this. And when we have programs that say we're going to teach abstinence in schools, the liberals go crazy and try and stop us from doing that. We have to have a president who's willing to say that the best opportunity an individual can give to their unborn child is an opportunity to be born in a home with a mother and a father. And I think --


 * Is Romney notable about his own position here? Hcobb (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Im not sure that it supports your interpretation of limiting ethnic minority babies. Pass a Method   talk  20:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The practical impact would be exactly the opposite. (I've tried to imagine minority youth seeing Romney as being cool and it just doesn't work for me.) But I suppose I have to wait for the lamestream media to note this. Hcobb (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are putting words in Romney's mouth. How do you know its meant that way? Its quite dissapointing how every statement, no matter how vague, is interpreted as racist nowadays. How many Republican candidates have been accused of racism so far? Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Bachmann, and now Romney too!!! Holy sh*t, thats really sad Pass a Method   talk  19:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

POV and inaccurate section header
User:Thomas Paine1776 has repeatedly changed the "Abortion" section header to say "Pro-life issues". This is both POV (as would be a header that said "Pro-choice issues"; the neutral term for the issue itself is simply "Abortion") and inaccurate (it implies that Romney has always been pro-life, when in fact for the first part of his political career he was pro-choice). For every other "Political positions of X" article, this header simply says "Abortion".

I've done enough reverts of Thomas Paine1776; if anyone else objects to this, you'll have to change it back. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Stimulus section: Charge?
"In 2011, Romney reversed himself and repeated the charge after denying that he had ever said that Obama's actions had made the recession worse."

There is no previous mention of any charge in this section, so this sentence can't be parsed, as written. I suspect the charge referred to has been removed in a previous edit. So I have changed this sentence to simply read as follows.

"In 2011, Romney reversed himself and denied that he had ever said that Obama's actions had made the recession worse."

Has it reached the point where "Opposition to President Obama" has become a major political position for Romney? If so, wouldn't it merit a section of its own? AvocadosTheorem (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Along the idea that Mitch McConnell said that the GOP's priority is defeating Obama in 2012. That is definitely a political position don't you think? AvocadosTheorem (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

How much GM stock is Obama personally holding?
The current version reads like Obama is personally profiting off an investment he made in GM stock. Hcobb (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

What's relevant and what's not
Check the title of the article: Political positions of Mitt Romney.

This should tell you what is relevant here are the political positions of Mitt Romney, no? So for example, material like this: "Romney's multiple policy stances on the Afghanistan war have been called "unclear and confusing." which are not the political positions of Mitt Romney, don't belong. Similarly, material like this: "In January 2008, a comprehensive analysis by the National Taxpayers Union found that Romney's presidential campaign proposals would increase the federal budget by $19.5 billion." is off-topic.  It's not a political position of Mitt Romney's.  It's somebody else's political position.

In response to a recent edit summary... Does this add a POV? No, it subtracts POV. And it adds Mitt Romney's POV. Because that's, you know, the subject of the article. Plus it should make it pretty simple to figure out what goes here and what doesn't. We can avoid a lot of back-and-forth haggling over edits this way. Belchfire (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In both of your examples, we have well-cited third parties who talk about... Mitt Romney's political positions. We can't give our own opinions, but we can and should include how the NTU and various senators describe his positions. Hiding these views adds POV, since we're censoring his critics. I won't do that. 24.45.42.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Were they reporting Romney's positions? Or editorializing?  Huge difference.  Belchfire (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the talk page. Thank you for joining us. Unfortunately, the point you bring up has already been refuted. Please read the article cited and you will see that they are reporting Romney's position, specifically its lack of clarity. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess you didn't notice that I started this section. Anywho, the point you just missed is that sourcing isn't the issue here.  The point is that you are inserting off-topic material in the article. Belchfire (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even begin to make sense, much less pass the sniff test. Look at the lede from the cited article:
 * "Republican candidate Mitt Romney's policy on the future of U.S.-led war in Afghanistan war is unclear and confusing, complicating attempts to either support or criticize it during the campaign, according to leading senators from both parties."
 * How can you even pretend for a moment that this isn't relevant to his political positions? Who are you kidding?! 24.45.42.125 (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not Mitt Romney's political position. Belchfire (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See, now you're just lying. It's a direct statement about his political position. The fact that senators from either side of the aisle find themselves unable to pin his position down is extremely relevant. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying Mitt Romney's position is that his policy on Afghanistan is unclear and confusing? Try to grok this: that's not Romney's position; that's somebody's opinion about Romney's position.
 * And by the way, do try to observe WP:CIVILITY. Belchfire (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Give me an argument that's not laughable, and I'll stop laughing. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding Afghanistan, the text does not reflect the source. Graham is OK with listening to the commanders, Kyl basically declined to comment, and Levin, a Dem, doesn't know what it is. The source is not saying that the policy is "confusing", the source is saying the 3 senetors don't know what it is. The addition must be removed per WP:BLP. – Lionel (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I want to mention that you changed your mind on this after reading the top of the article, which is why you reverted yourself. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the NTU, I have a huge issue using a report the bulk of which was probably compiled in 2007--5 years ago--and released in 2008...during the last election. – Lionel (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. More recent reports (http://www.ntu.org/ntuf/425study-of-gop-candidates.html) do not support this claim. Clearly, Mitt's flip-flopped since 2008. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the NTU stuff anymore. Guess it's already gone. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The general approach of these articles should be just to list the political figure's positions, with the date of each clearly stated. If the political figure said A not B in 2005, B not A in 2008, and A and B in 2011, then the reader will be able to determine that the positions are contradictory over time. Including third-party opinions about the positions is rarely useful. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree in general, but we have an odd case here in that nobody seems to know what his position is even now. The most we can report is this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney's Afghanistan views, as understood by senators.
There have been a few attempts to remove this section, most recently by Arzel. I'd like to head off an edit war by giving them a chance to explain their reasoning here and seek consensus. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The best way to head off an edit war is to not start one. You're starting a new section when the section just above this one is discussing the very same issue.  Be patient and wait for consensus, please.  Belchfire (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm giving you a chance to address the issue. Please do so. If you don't, then I guess you have no genuine objections. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made this crystal clear - the article should be confined to opinions attributable to Romney or his campaign. It's in the section above this one.  So far, you seem to be the only editor who disagrees or who has trouble grasping that.


 * Right now the section on Afghanistan is almost entirely unsourced, so clearly it needs work. But obviously, the material that is there most likely came from somewhere, so trying to say "nobody knows his position" is laughable.  Belchfire (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This doesn't explain why you're trying to remove a statement about what his political views are. It's not that the senators agree or disagree with his views, but that they are unable to determine his views in the first place, and that's highly notable. Now, if you can do better than these senators, complete with strong citations, feel free to add to this, but don't remove what's there. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why can't we stick with what he's actually said, which is that he is against the timeline and that he agrees with the timeline? Hcobb (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It comes down to clear writing. If you want readers to understand something, you start off with an introductory summary that shows the overall shape. For example, the LGBT section begins, "Prior to Romney's 2008 presidential campaign, he had a varied history regarding LGBT rights in the United States."
 * As it stands, without the sentence about his Afghanistan views, the reader is not going to get an accurate understanding of Romney's views, which means we will have failed. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, while we waste our time talking about this and coming to a consensus, Belch has already edit-warred to get his way. Some things never change. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Call it what you must, but fixing a section that was mostly without cites and straightening out a bunch of drive-by, single-sentence edits into something that reads coherently isn't quite "edit warring" to my mind. You might also notice that I kept the Foreign Policy Magazine source, but I've used the part of it that actually talks about Romney's position.  Belchfire (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I call it what it is. I sat back and let you make the changes because it's the best way to figure out what you actually want, given that you won't talk candidly here. Apparently, you'd like to group Afghanistan under terrorism, which would be a logical error, and you'd also like to remove significant well-cited material on Romney's views about the war in Afghanistan.


 * Neither of these changes helped the article, so I took the liberty of undoing them. I did keep your neutral copyedits, of course. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What is in there now is far too wordy and we don't need long quotes. If his positions change over time, just present them in chrono order and it will be clear enough that they may be confusing. Doubtless more research can be done. We can't have any editorializing on all these many issues. By the way, I went to Obama's article and there's hardly anything in there at all, so just to make Wikipedia look NPOV we should have sections that cover most of the same issues and none of them of WP:Undue length. CarolMooreDC 03:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually had it pared to a more coherent statement of Romney's views earlier, but a disruptive editor un-did the improvements. I think the version I had in place prior to reversion was a much more accurate, more neutral and more reasonably sized statement of Romney's position.  I'll let most of it sit for now while other editors take a look, but the first line in the current version is off-topic and goes against consensus, so I'm pulling it out now.  Belchfire (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think mine was better because I first researched earlier unsourced quote and it came from his general comments about Bush's wars not specifically Afghanistan. We can leave The Cable in as just telling us what is on his website which is what he said earlier. I'm no Romney fan, but I think the issue is this is all he's gonna say and if the Senators don't know it or want more, it's not our job to print what other people say about him cause that could take 1000 pages. CarolMooreDC 03:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly. If we include what everybody has ever "said about" Romney's positions, we (1) wind up with an article that is ridiculously huge and (2) we are straying way off the topic.  I can come up with rock-solid, reliable sources that show somebody said Barack Obama is a Marxist, a Muslim, a Kenyan, or a circus clown... but nobody in their right mind is going to either put those things in an article called Political positions of Barack Obama, nor would other editors sit still for it.  It's all about pushing a POV, whether the guilty parties admit it or not.  Belchfire (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way... you can pretty much rest assured the section will look different than it does now by this time tomorrow or the next day. Belchfire (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

False info
I have read through much of this... And I found this article misleading and bias. I have compared this to Mitt Romney's page and multiple others, and it seems WAY off.

One section, Abortion. It says he hasn't made any pledges and seems to show him as indecisive and pro-choice. All of which is false.

http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/abortion-stem-cell-research/

It also says he supports Planned Parenthod, even though the previous articles and the following article claims him to want to de-fund them.

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Issues.php

The article claims Romney doesn't want to cut spending, but to raise taxes.

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/here-how-i-will-control-federal-spending

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/Debt,_Deficit,_Spending,_and_the_Size_of_Government/

This article seems to try and make him seem bad, even using ideas of his that simply don't exist. Please revise this article using his actual views and political positions.

http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

http://www.mittromney.com/

http://www.aboutmittromney.com/abortion.htm

After reviewing citiations for the article, I found the most common ones being The New York Times and The Boston Globe. They are both owned by the New York Times Company, which are famous for being libral and one-sided, especially against Romney.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/21/liberal-bias-is-killing-the-new-york-times/

http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Political_persuasion_overall where even their Public Editor Daniel Okrent wrote that they had a libral bias

For the most part, a lot of Romney's political views are misrepresented and disagree with what his site and he himself claim his views are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CDFC:D5B0:FD58:D068:89D5:9AF (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that he's flip-flopped a lot and is now vague on a lot of stuff. c.f. "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." Also, what is this "libral"? Hcobb (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 2602:306, this article describes Romney's positions on issues over time. So if he had one position in 1994, another in 2002, another in 2005, and then another in 2007 to now, this article will describe each of them.  All positions and statements should be clearly dated, so if you see some that aren't, that is a change that needs to be made.  As for bias, pretty much every one of Romney's opponents in the 2008 and 2012 Republican primary contests have criticized him for positions shifts and flip-flopping, so it's not just a figment of the Librul Media Conspiracy's imagination.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Since Mitt has held every position on every issue, this article has grown to unreasonable size. So is it time to split off History of the political positions of Mitt Romney yet? Hcobb (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Best to have his positions side by side. Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We can't pick and choose which versions to report. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Financial crisis section might be useful
I think the "Automotive industry", "Financial industry", and "Stimulus" sections should be combined under a section called "Financial crisis" or "Response to 2007–2008 financial crisis" or "Response to late-2000s recession" or something like that, because they are all linked together and because the content in each of these sections is specific to that time period (and not a general comment about the auto industry or Keynesian economics or whatever). But with or without that change, Romney's position on TARP needs to be added (he has supported it as necessary but said it was at times poorly administered, see here or here for possible sources). Wasted Time R (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep it simple to something rather short which Financial crisis should be good enough. Otherwise, you'll needing extra sections every time a financial crisis comes up.  Given Romney's history at Bain, I'm sure he's had to deal with every financial crisis up to 1998 taking his company through them.  ViriiK (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable idea. I think it can be made to work. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Conflict Bias
In the Syria section of foreign policy, the article states the opinionated and off-topic sentence "Even though these groups include Al-Queda supporters (and it links to a non-existent source). Can I delete that sentence fragment?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.104.251 (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's not sourced and we have reason to doubt it, then I certainly wouldn't object to deletion. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sourcing is not the issue and actually, I thought I'd already taken that out. So, no objection.   Belch fire - TALK  03:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already fixed the source. Unless you have objections on a different ground, Belch.  ViriiK (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Besides the generally crufty-sounding riff, just look at this quote from the source and tell me if you see any problems: "Obama rejects the idea of arming the Syrian opposition, his aides warning that those rebels could include groups that are friendly toward the al Qaida terrorist network."  Belch fire - TALK 03:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That article just states that Obama's aides worry that the Syrian rebels could include Al-Queda sympathetic elements. To bluntly state that "these groups include Al-Queda supporters" is a far stretch from Obama's aides worrying that there could be some Al-Queda sympathizers in the Syrian rebels' ranks.  And despite that ridiculous stretch, how does that have anything to do with Mitt Romney's political positions?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.104.251 (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I noticed, it is making a huge stretch and should be shortened only to state Obama's statement. Afterall, Obama is Romney's opponent, not those aides.  ViriiK (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, why do we need Obama's statement here? Are we presenting a synopsis of Romney's views, or critiquing them?  Belch fire - TALK 03:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Added additional source of King Abdullah II of Jordan. Romney providing arms to Al Qaeda is being warned about from all corners.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/05/24/20120524us-may-support-arms-syrians.html#ixzz1vsn9jTHG The effort, U.S. officials told the Associated Press, would vet members of the Free Syrian Army and other groups to determine whether they are suitable recipients of munitions to fight the Assad government and to ensure that weapons don't wind up in the hands of al-Qaida-linked terrorists or other extremist groups such as Hezbollah that could target Israel.


 * Seems to be the policy of the Obama regime that Romney is rejecting. Hcobb (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, so we have an editorial piece from the National Review and the word of King Abdullah to work with, and we're taking that as an objective statement of fact? If that's all we've got, we need different wording.  I don't think we can say in Wikipedia's voice that the Syrian rebels are aligned with al-Queda based on that.   Belch fire - TALK  03:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What exactly constitutes a reliable source for AQ infiltration that trumps both the USA government and the American-friendly king of the adjoining country? The Daily Telegraph? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9396256/Al-Qaeda-tries-to-carve-out-a-war-for-itself-in-Syria.html Hcobb (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So far, I haven't seen where that information is an official US government assertion. What I have seen is unnamed "Obama aides", which is roughly comparable to saying it was overheard in a laundromat.  I'll look at your source in a minute, and thanks for not bringing us The Guardian UK.   Belch fire - TALK  04:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, here are the problems: I could probably go on, but that's sufficient for now. I'm not categorically objecting to some mention of the situation's complexities, but there are clear issues with making it a statement of empirical fact. Please take some of the spin out of it, would you please?  Belch fire - TALK 04:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) There are multiple rebel groups in Syria - are they all al-Quesa affiliates?
 * 2) Do we have something that says Romney is willing to support groups that are affiliates, or has the question been posed in-context?
 * 3) Does Romney know something that the press isn't telling us?
 * 4) How is this not WP:CRYSTAL, given the state of flux in Syria?


 * Is Romney in opposition to Obama policies?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world/middleeast/as-syrian-war-drags-on-jihad-gains-foothold.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all A central reason cited by the Obama administration for limiting support to the resistance to things like communications equipment is that it did not want arms flowing to Islamic radicals.


 * So is Romney on the president's side or the side of the terrorists? Either Romney's position is identical to current American policy, or he wants to arm AQ affiliated groups. Which is it? Hcobb (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The changes you've made on this topic seem reasonable and have my support. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You sound just like George Bush. :-) "False dichotomy" may or may not be too strong of a description for that statement, but really, we lack sufficient information to know one way or the other.  Then again, it shouldn't surprise us that the Western media has difficulty unearthing solid information about al-Queda that doesn't come from "unnamed sources".  It seems that both candidates are eager to avoid direct, overt U.S. involvement, or at least are eager to appear so prior to the election.   Belch fire - TALK  04:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no way to conclude from that article that Romney is on the side of terrorists, only against Obama's so that question you asked is very ambiguous. It merely talks about the fact that Romney would support the anti-Syrian forces which apparently there are many.  Right now that question is asking us to formulate OR because we do not have sufficient information. ViriiK (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ViriiK: May I ask for a small favor? Rather than referring to "OR" can you say what you mean in a manner that makes sense? Cwobeel (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your question suggests there may be some weakness in your grasp of the concept. OR is pretty easy to spot, when you understand what it is.  An easy test is to ask if the editor needed to apply his own reasoning in order to produce a given piece of information - if it's not directly attributable to a source, it's OR.  Here, we have one source saying A, another source saying B, and the editor wants to say in Wikipedia's voice that A+B=C, when neither A or B said C.  This is what we call WP:SYNTH, which is OR's ugly secret booty-call.    Belch fire - TALK  17:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/25/romney-campaign-arm-syrian-rebels/ shows that Romney clearly wants to arm the Syrian opposition. And to suggest that the rebels are Al-Queda aligned suggests a painful misunderstanding of the situation in Syria. There are Al-Queda aligned elements within the opposition as a whole, but to suggest that the whole of the FSA (especially the units that are well coordinated and connected to the central command, which advocates for a secular democracy) are Al-Queda aligned is silly. The way the article makes it seem is that the entire opposition is Al-Queda aligned, and that's patently false. The secular opposition is in fact quite opposed to the jihadist one, and to lump them all together is a sloppy analysis of foreign affairs. For more on the struggles within the opposition's two sides, see http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/opposition-group-leader-randa-kassis-on-islamist-fighters-in-syria-a-844622.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world/middleeast/as-syrian-war-drags-on-jihad-gains-foothold.html?pagewanted=all. I propose that, if it is even relevant to the Political positions of Mitt Romney to mention the conflict going on within the opposition, to talk about the fear that arming the opposition could lead to arms getting to Al-Queda, as opposed to implying that arming the opposition = arming Al-Queda sympathizers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.104.251 (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I mostly concur. But more to the point, the push to say Romney wants to support al-Queda is simply spin.  It doesn't come from a source; it's the product of OR, as detailed above.  Our first clue to dig deeper should be when a piece of information comes to the media from "unnamed sources".  If nobody in the Obama Administration is willing to put their name to that, why should Wikipedia?  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  00:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So, if I were to remove the Al-Queda reference in the article and point out that Romney wants to arm the rebels, would y'all be ok with that?--24.187.104.251 (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not going to complain, but I see that other editors want that part left in. It might give your edit a little more staying power if you propose your new wording here, and maybe give it an hour or so to be blessed by passers-by.  You are under no obligation to do so, of course.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My proposed edit: "Romney's senior foreign policy adviser has indicated that he would support the moderate elements of the Syrian opposition.  This adviser has also stated that Romney would arm the opposition, in contrary to Barack Obama, who fears that the arms sent to the opposition could end up in the hands of Al-Queda."  Is it acceptable to the WikiWorld?--24.187.104.251 (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on content, I'd copyedit it to:
 * Romney's senior foreign policy adviser has indicated that he would support the moderate elements of the Syrian opposition by arming them. Barack Obama, in contrast, opposes sending arms due to concerns that they could end up in the hands of Al-Queda."
 * Hope that helps. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I didn't see these proposals right away and I got busy on something else.
 * To the both of you, I am wary of going out of our way to make the contrast with Obama. We shouldn't have to say what Obama would do in order to describe Romney's positions.  It's cruft.  Yes, I know that's going on in other places but that doesn't make it right.  There's no reason we can't say that Romney wants to arm Syrian moderates, not mention Obama, and be done with it.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  04:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I like that very much so. I'm going to keep the copyedit from above because it's already written and isn't wrong, but if you want to remove the part about Obama, you have my support.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.104.251 (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't comment on content before, but I'll do so now. I'm fine with removing Obama, but it does seem useful to mention that he's willing to arm people who the present government feels we cannot trust, due to their likely willingness to pass the weapons on to terrorists. Perhaps something like:
 * "Romney would overturn the policy against sending arms to moderate elements of the Syrian opposition, rejecting the idea that they would pass the weapons on to Al-Queda".
 * This avoids direct comparison of the two, and is trying very hard to be neutral. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's good stuff, Still-24. I support it.  A small tweak: "overturn the current policy"  That tells the whole story.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  04:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

My original draft did say "current", but I cut it out to avoid recentism. The version at this moment substitutes "existing", which de-emphasizes the time. If you can improve on that, go for it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Tellya what, we got rid of the awkward sentence fragment that led us to look at this, and we got rid of the "Yeah but Obama says..." stuff, so I'm not inclined to be nit-picky if what's there right now isn't causing an issue. How does our IP friend feel about things?  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  04:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Israel
If we are saying this: "Romney has denied that comments he made when speaking about the Palestinian economy compared to Israel's economy, as he did with other countries as well, were directed against "Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy," as he did with other countries as well.[125]" we need to also say what these comments were. Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That viewpoint is broader than Palestine: the sources indicate that he holds the view that culture can influence the prosperity of a country (any country).  I've moved that material out into its own section; and I added a source which discusses the topic as it is described in Romney's book.  This material is not  in great shape now: more work needs to be done. --Noleander (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cwobeel and Noleander. I agree with Cwobeel that his comments should be added so people understand what it was about, and for those unfamiliar with Israeli vs Palestinian GDP, but I agree with Noleander that it's not the main point for that section. In that regard, I added just a few words which explain briefly his comments, which will hopefully be fine with everyone. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  16:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Another issue worth reporting is on this said by Romney: "As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000 dollars, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality." When in fact the disparity on GDP is $30,000 to $2,000 Cwobeel (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "The economic disparity between the Israelis and the Palestinians is actually much greater than Romney stated. Israel had a per capita gross domestic product of about $31,000 in 2011, while the West Bank and Gaza had a per capita GDP of just over $1,500, according to the World Bank." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mitt-romney/9438251/Mitt-Romney-Palestinian-comments-racist-and-out-of-touch.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwobeel (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The actual difference is not relevant to the point he was trying to make. Arzel (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Arabic Israelis and the general Palestinian population share one culture, and have vastly different economic outcomes, so Romney must have been calling for a lifting of the occupation and blockade.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/gdp-per-capita-in-jewish-sector-3-times-more-than-among-israeli-arabs-1.210365


 * Unless he really meant to talk about this, of course. Hcobb (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Um no, thinking that he would call for that is ridiculous. And the part about sharing one culture is just as ridiculous.  Many Arab Israelis' loyalties do lie with Palestinians, but many others are proud to serve in the Israeli army, and the majority of Arabs in Jerusalem actually said they'd rather stay in Israel during a final peace treaty in a poll.  But this isn't the place to push a POV in.--<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  18:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not he got the #s wrong isn't for us to include - that'd be WP:OR. To me, it doesn't seem like that much of a big deal, everyone still got the main point, but if it's reported widely in reliable media outlets, then it'd go in. But that wasn't a statement that was singled out or heavily scrutinized, and to report it would be original research (WP:OR). --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  18:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a big deal, as it shows lack of preparation from his part, but I agree that unless it is widely reported, it should not go in. Cwobeel (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article by Mitt Romney about his remarks which may be useful to include - http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/312830/culture-does-matter-mitt-romney


 * That presents a problem as explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources which states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." Cwobeel (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh please. It's something Mitt Romney wrote to respond to the criticism. We're not reporting any of it as a fact - that would violate WP:NPOV - just as part of his response. Really, WP:OR is ridiculous to use here. And besides, you'd have to back up your statement with proof from the reliable sources noticeboard about National Review to show that this widely-read magazine is unreliable... --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  22:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it irks you that much, here's an article about it from the huffington post - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/mitt-romney-culture_n_1726431.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012


 * I am an old dog, and will take more than this to "irk" me. What I am saying that we should keep direct quotes to a minimum, and use as much as possible what reputable sources say instead. Cwobeel (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, and I don't consider Mein Kampf as a reputable source, but if you want to write about Hitler's ideaology on Wikipedia, that'd be a very good place to take passages from (and NO, don't anyone dare accuse me of comparing Romney with him!). Same thing here, if you want to write about what a person says, then taking it from where they publish it is what they said themselves.  And the Huffington Post is considered a reliable source.--<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  22:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you please tone-down the rhetoric? I am not here to discuss your opinions or to talk about the Nazis. Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was using an example to illustrate a point. I haven't discussed my opinions at all - simply put, it's ridiculous to say that for some reason X is unreliable source so if we're talking about Y and Y wrote in X, we shouldn't mention that.  Not at all. And I also wrote that The Huffington Post linked to it as well and wrote about it. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  04:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are having a dispute with yourself, not with me. I did not mention anything about any source not being reliable. What I am arguing for is the exclusion as much as possible of primary sources, ad described in the No Original Research page. Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Embassy of Mexico
The section "role of culture" at end of foreign policy writes: "On 1 August 2012, the Embassy of Mexico in the United States rejected the comments Romney made in Israel and stated that Mexico 'has one of the most dynamic economies in the world,' with a 3.5% projected growth for 2012.[158] The Mexican embassy noted that Mexico has a low inflation rate, an unemployment rate of 4.9%, a growing middle class, and the second-largest exporter to the United States.[158] In addition, the political scientists Angelo Falcón considered that Romney's declaration was 'ahistorical, eurocentric, prejudice, and tendentious.'[158]"

Is this necessary? It's an article about Romney's political positions, not about debates and criticisms and responses. Just briefly skimming the article, the sections appear to explain Romney's views and what he has said on each issue, and not what his opponent has said, other officials, countries, embassies, journalists, etc (which makes sense)...

Anyone else feel the same way? --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  03:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I would keep just the last sentence. Cwobeel (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Role of culture in producing prosperity
Several rebuttals are being published on Romney's citing of books and authors to buttress his speech at the fundraiser in Israel. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/jared-diamond-mitt-romney_n_1732559.html - I suggest we either add some of these rebuttals or remove the cites. Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We could also include something about Romney's editorial after returning from his trip: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/312830/culture-does-matter-mitt-romney Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? The article is "Political positions of Mitt Romney." Not "Everything about Romney's political positions." Nowhere else on the page as far as I can tell contains rebuttals, in line with other candidates across Wikipedia whose articles "Political positions of X" only publish their position. That's why the entire last paragraph should be removed. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  21:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * International outrage at his boorish behavior moved to the campaign article, to the extent of its notability. Hcobb (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Automotive
I am going to add a few recent sources to this section as footnotes, and tweak the section accordingly. FYI, here are excerpts from the three sources:

Romney's main policy prescription was a series of federal spending for retraining and green tech, to be doled out in $20 billion chunks over five years. The McCain campaign derided this as a "$100 billion bailout of the auto industry."

That's from David A. Graham. "A Short History of Mitt Romney's Views on the Detroit Bailout", The Atlantic (April 30, 2012).

It's fairly clear that Romney has been saying for three years that he would have favored government guarantees after a managed bankruptcy, and that he opposed a bailout. That doesn't explain the central question of how he would have handled funding for the bankruptcy, but it's unfair to call Romney's claim a flip-flop -- just as it was silly for Fehrnstrom to claim that Obama was just following Romney's advice. That's from David A. Graham. "Mitt Romney Didn't Flip-Flop on the Auto Bailout (This Time)", The Atlantic (June 5, 2012).

Although Romney is right that the vehicle for Detroit’s ultimate rebound was a “managed bankruptcy” of the car companies — which he called for in his now-famous 2008 New York Times op-ed entitled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt — it’s hard to see how he can take credit for Detroit’s recovery because he opposed the billions in federal loans that made the industry’s rebirth possible….In his Times op-ed, Romney did advocate for a role for the federal government, writing that it “should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing.” (It’s worth noting that Romney did not write the Times headline, which gives the impression that Romney thought the companies should be allowed to fail completely. He didn’t think that.) That's from Sam Gustin. "Does Mitt Romney Deserve Credit for Saving Detroit? Not Quite", Time Magazine (May 9, 2012).108.18.174.123 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see how these add to what is there now. Cwobeel (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

POV Check
Especially in the opening paragraph, this reads like a pro-Romney press release.

I'm not saying a bunch of negative citations need to be injected, but I feel like the voice used to describe the Republican nominee for Untied States President is not objective.

Most biographical information starts off with who they are and what they are most accomplished for. I see that Mr. Romney, "...campaigned on his plan to restore jobs in America...," which reads more like a talking point instead of an introductory sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SinkingFeeling (talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: I checked similar articles for 8 liberals. They all have criticisms in their articles, so unless you want to eliminate every critical viewpoint in such articles, it would make far more logical sense to make this one more balanced and fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SinkingFeeling (talk • contribs) 21:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think a root cause here is that there's no need for an opening paragraph that tries to summarize his positions or rationale for his candidacy. The whole purpose of this article is to give detailed and nuanced positions, not quick sound bites.  So I've replaced the lead with what a lot of the other "Political positions of ..." articles do, which is just establish the biographical points at which the positions were taken and then get to the individual sections without further ado.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Without telling us which 8 articles you checked, it means nothing. Besides, the existence of problems in other articles is not a reason to introduce problems into this one.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  01:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Simpson-Bowles plan
I think we should add some of this: "In an interview with conservative Fox host Sean Hannity, Mr. Romney said “my plan is very similar to the Simpson-Bowles plan.” The Romney proposal, however, has little in common with that bipartisan deficit-reduction proposal from a majority on the fiscal commission that Mr. Obama created in 2010. The Simpson-Bowles plan called for reduced income tax rates, but it would have raised about $2 trillion more in tax revenues over 10 years, mostly from high-income taxpayers, and cut spending to reduce the federal debt." Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
In 2012, Romney blasted Obama for offering the states flexibility in the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, such as Romney himself had asked for in 2005.


 * What part of that is fictional?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-07/romney-woos-working-families-attacking-obama-on-welfare

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/romney-ad-says-obama-is-gutting-welfare-reform/2012/08/07/1533432e-e078-11e1-8d48-2b1243f34c85_story.html


 * And yet more refs, pointing out Mitt's usual conflict with Mitt. Hcobb (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The fictional part is where you said Romney "blasted" Obama (which wasn't in your source and wouldn't be acceptable in the article even if it was, which you should know), and the part where you nonchalantly tried to say Romney's 2005 request was the same as what Obama just offered. Neither one of your sources say that except in the most broadly general terms, and I notice you didn't bother mentioning that the Romney campaign denies the charge.  Hmmm.  Why not?


 * The story itself is legit and there should be mention of this in the article. But you'll need to source the similarities between the 2005 request and those made in 2012 if you want to say they were the same, and you'll need to drop your partisan spin.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  02:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's MUCH better, thank you. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  03:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead
The lead as it stands now, does no longer represent the content of the article. See WP:LEAD. The previous version was better: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney&diff=506312809&oldid=506300055 Cwobeel (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Cwobeel (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid, with due respect to Wasted (whose edits I have generally found to be sound and balanced), I have to agree with Cwobeel in this instance. I think I understand the reason for replacing what had been there with the present text (yes, it's difficult to summarize some of the issues without being flip or misleading), but coming to the present lede 'cold' it doesn't really summarize the article or the issues IMHO. Alfietucker (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I do think the lead can be beefed up, but a secondary source should define that main issues and controversies. I myself stuck in what I thought was most important in his foreign policy, a statement many Americans might actually question. But since everything else in the paragraph was WP:OR, I went for it. Also, since the article does not touch on/detail every controversy (for reasons explained elsewhere in talk) and just lets people see changes in positions that might be controversial, we should not emphasize controversy too much in lead except where news stories overwhelmingly have covered his positions. I don't get the impression all of those in that version are the most covered. Perhaps give it a try within that kind of context.  CarolMooreDC 14:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasted's lead is small and a bit dry, but it's unquestionably neutral, and that's something this article desperately needs. Adding summaries to the lead is just going to cause edit wars, distortions and fluff.
 * The underlying problem -- and this affects the whole article -- is that any fair summary of Mitt's evolution is going to lend support to charges of being a flip-flopper, and that has historically led to the conservative contingent tearing into comparisons to water them down and replace them with campaign spin. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it will be easy, but we need to fix it. As it stands, one has to pour through a very long article to get the gist. See an example here Political_positions_of_John_McCain Cwobeel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead I wrote does summarize the article. The article is a disparate collection of all the positions Romney has staked out on a large number issues in his election campaigns, his governorship, and his book.  And that's what the lead says.  What "gist" is it that you're looking for?  "Romney is a moderate who turned conservative"?  "Romney is a Massachusetts moderate and a national conservative"?  "Romney is a social liberal and fiscal conservative and foreign policy moderate who turned conservative on all of three"?  "Romney lacks any core convictions"?  Good luck keeping any of those in the lead ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * None of these would work, but I think we should attempt to summarize it. I will give it a try. Cwobeel (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Political positions
Per the lead, this is an article that describes Romney's political positions during his entire career as a politician, and not just his current positions during the Presidential campaign. I have started correcting some of the sections (Energy) to include dates and references for previously held positions, if they have evolved from current ones. Feel free to help with other sections. Cwobeel (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, definitely, everything should be dated, especially since much of this article was originally written in 2007. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Technology
The first part of that section is sourced to http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Technology which is no longer online. Has Romney changed that position? What we we do when the source is gone? Cwobeel (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Internet Archive can often retrieve old versions of candidates' websites. For example, http://web.archive.org/web/20071206010743/http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Technology has a preserved version of that page.  Then use the archiveurl and archivedate parameters of the cite web template to source it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks. But the issue is that we do not know what his current position on Technology is. So we need to note that as of today, the position on these polices is unknown. What do you think? Cwobeel (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, just leave it as it is. As long as it's dated, it's clear when it comes from.  If someone else discovers something more recent, they can add it.  Saying his current position is unknown is like trying to prove a negative.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Trimming too much
There were some recent edits that, as a whole, trimmed too much nuance and endangered NPOV. I didn't want to do a full reversion, but I did wind up restoring paragraphs and even two whole sections. In the future, we need to be more careful about trimming; it's not just the fat that's being lost. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ViriiK just reverted everything I did, complaining that I should have made these changes sooner. I don't see this as even slightly valid. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you have a consensus to re-add this information? What part are you objecting to that you believe has been hastily removed?  ViriiK (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have any explanation for why this material was removed or why we should keep it out of the article? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They are listed in the history which Belchfire documented every one of those changes. Again are there any changes in particular that you object to?  ViriiK (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see; you're avoiding my question and being counterproductive. I'm going to bring in more eyes. Expect a genuine notice on your talk page. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there any changes in particular that you object to? ViriiK (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer your question as plainly and as directly as possible... Yes, I do have an explanation for trimming some material.


 * Some material has been removed simply because it does not fit the description of "Political positions of Mitt Romney" - and more off-topic material will likely be removed in the future, as I get time. There's just so much of it that I don't have time to nip it all at once.  So, if I spot content that is really the "political position of some Senator," or "somebody else's opinion about the political positions of Mitt Romney", I'm probably going to boldly remove it.  Similarly, when I spot partisan cruft, I'll be editing that out, too.  Because it's off-topic, and simply doesn't belong in the article.  I'm sure you understand.


 * I hope that's an adequate explanation.


 * By the way, the majority of what you ask could be answered simply by paying attention to the edit summaries that I provided for each one of the incremental changes. Things like "copy edit", "fix citation", or "consolidate paragraphs".  It's hard to understand why you would ask such a question, as if my edits were entirely unexplained, when in fact there is at least a basic explanation right before your eyes.  I'm sure you just overlooked this, however.


 * Have a nice night, Still. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  09:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Belchfire, I agree that this article needed an overhaul. However, spot checking the difference between the old and new versions, I've found a couple of your changes I disagree with:
 * Removal of "Evolution" section. Your reason was "rm irrelevance, creationism not an issue in any campaign Romney has contested".  I don't think that's a valid reason - positions are listed here not only because that have been issues in Romney's past, but because they may be issues he deals with in the future.  Furthermore, public statements about evolution often provide an insight into a political figure's attitude towards science in general, or even if they understand how science works (e.g. "evolution is just a theory").
 * Removal of "In his March 2010 book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Romney wrote, 'I believe that climate change is occurring. [...] I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.'[54]" Your reason was "rm redudancy".  I understand what you're saying, relative to the June 2011 New Hampshire remarks that the article does include, but I feel the book quote should be included too.  That's because this is a very important issue, and because he later reversed himself on this.  Saying something in a book (that he says he personally wrote) carries more weight than saying the same thing in any random public appearance, and thus reversing the stance you took in a book a year later deserves to be shown in the article.
 * I'll keep checking for anything else I see.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Removal of "In Romney's 2007 Iowans for Taxpayer Relief and Iowa Republican Straw Poll speeches, he advocated eliminating the capital gains tax.[39][40]" Reason given was "Copyedit (major) Rm unsourced and off-topic, rearrange for coherence".  But this is a position he later shifted (to capping the elimination at $200K income), so the earlier position should be given too.  It's especially notable in that he shifted in the progressive direction on this one.Wasted Time R (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Removal of "On August 24, 2007, Romney unveiled his national health care plan. His plan allowed the states to choose individual health care plans.[71]" Reason given was "rm background details from 2007".  This isn't background details, but a whole plan that he announced the first time he ran for president.  That deserves to stay in (and be expanded if possible).  This isn't just a "current positions of ..." article, but a "history of political positions of ..." article.  It's especially notable in this case because there's been a lot of goalpost-shifting in the whole healthcare debate and it's useful to know where people stood in the past. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If I might make a recommendation, check out the abortion section. I remember having to pretty much revert the whole thing because so much information was lost. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On the abortion section, I think you should have kept more of the first Romney quote from the Kennedy debate: "... I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. ... I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of a woman to make that choice, and my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign."  That clearly states his position then, especially in regards R v W.  The response to Kennedy's multiple-choice can also be kept in if you want, but I think the whole family anecdote thing is of lesser importance.  In general I find this section hard to read.  It's not spelled out where the big switch occurs, stem cell is brought in briefly and then returns later, and when it does return it's not in chronological order.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You should probably know that I took this to dispute resolution, which is waiting on Belchfire to explain himself.

I don't know if you want to add yourself to the participants or just keep an eye on it; that's up to you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasted, thanks for your well-thought-out comments. As was just mentioned above, Still-24's reversions have been taken to DRN, and he and I both should probably confine our discussions to that forum pending further notice.  If I'm not mistaken, there isn't any reason you couldn't join us there.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Although many editors choose to suspend talk page discussion while at WP:DRN, there is no requirement to do so. Do whatever works for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I've abstained from the DRN since it's both a conduct and content issue and one side of that conversation can only be heard. I'm still inquiring as to other than what Wasted has objected to on what does Still-IP object to.  Since the matter has been reviewed (at least here), it should be reasonable to make all of the removals except for Wasted's objections to go ahead.  The reason for this is because I'd like to ask for  a run down list from Still-IP with his reasons for each edit removal which there are plenty.  It is impossible to know what specific issues based on Wikipedia policy he is using for each and every one of those edits.  I would believe this is also the appropriate place to list them since this is the talk page for the article.  I hope Guy Macon agrees.  ViriiK (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To my way of thinking, it is always good to discuss why you made or want to make an edit. The ideal situation is for everybody to come to an agreement on the talk page and to tell me to close the DRN case as resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wasted R, now that things have settled down here a little, I'll respond to your bullet points in sequence.
 * My reason for getting rid of Romney's position on Evolution goes to notability. Is there any current coverage on it? (No.)  Why should anybody care? (Nobody does.) Saying it might be an issue in the future is pure WP:CRYSTAL, so that's a non-starter.
 * In the climate change section I removed multiple redundancies - basically the same positions were repeated over and over and over again, as if the editors who inserted them didn't bother to read the section they were expanding. I agree with your comment about Romney's book being a more definitive source, but that doesn't justify pointless repetition.  So swap out the current source for his book, and update the quote if needed.  That would be quite sensible.
 * I think we need to resist the temptation to include every wobble or head-fake from the 2008 election cycle. If he reversed himself on something, fine.  If he just made adjustments to wonkish details, so what?  Changes made before the primaries started, in particular, don't merit a mention.  If he changed his mind during the primaries, that would be something to look at.
 * I removed the details of Romney's selection of a healthcare policy advisory committee. Yes, that information is, beyond any serious question, "background details".  If you want to re-include details of his position going into the 2008 primaries, I have no objection.
 * Dude, seriously? You're arguing to put back minutia from a debate that was 18 years ago?  Please.  There's enough there now to show his original stance for purposes of contrast.  That's all we need.

I understand the need to show how some of Romney's views have changed over his 20+ years in politics, but it needs to be kept under control. There isn't a politician in the universe whose positions don't evolve over time, so it's just partisan bullshit to try to make it look like Romney has some sort of a special problem in this area. Unfortunately, due to the incumbent's weak record and stumbling campaign, focusing attention on Romney's purported "flips" has been the stand-in du jour in lieu of making a cogent case for Obama's re-election, and some of his supporters are editing this encyclopedia accordingly. That sort of thing deserves to be met with push-back. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 02:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As you said, it comes down to whether evolution has been an issue raised recently by secondary sources.
 * It has. . I get the impression that much of the interest is found in conservative sources, although it also shows up in more neutral ones. (Also, it's a bit hard to Google articles because of how many use "evolution" to refer to the shifts in his positions on other issues.)
 * On this basis, I suggest that we restore some mention of his position, perhaps quoting what he said in 2007 (and hasn't changed since). Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, some comments on the general purpose of "Political positions of ..." articles. These do not involve just what is getting "current coverage". Obviously, positions related to current issues may predominate, but positions related to past issues are important too. Somebody's stance on the Iraq War would be an obvious example. Furthermore, note that these articles exist on people no longer on the active political scene - Political positions of Ralph Nader, Political positions of George W. Bush, Political positions of Ronald Reagan, Political positions of Theodore Roosevelt, etc. Obviously those articles are often covering issues that are no longer current or even familiar to the modern reader. As for "Why should anybody care?" as a metric, that's all in the eye of the reader. Detailed discussion of farm policy puts 90 percent of American readers to sleep (politicians too, if they were honest), yet to the remaining 10 percent it's quite vital. I think positions should be presumed important enough to include unless it's blatantly obvious that they aren't. And your guideline about changing positions before vs. during primaries doesn't make sense to me. Politicians can tell from polls and other feedback during the 'silent primary' (e.g. 2007, 2011) whether they're getting any traction, and if they start recasting themselves politically, that counts just as much as if they do it the next year during the primaries. Similarly, whitepapers and other proposals put out during the year proceeding count too. You wouldn't keep out positions taken in No Apology, would you, just because that was published before any primaries began?

Now, I agree with you that every politician's positions evolve and change over time, for a variety of reasons. These articles should not play "gotcha" in trying to point out inconsistencies nor should they include verbal blunders that don't represent intentional positions. But nor should they shy away from enumerating positions that, taken as a whole, indicate a lot of change. Unfortunately, you went off the rails with your "partisan bullshit" rant at the end there. Take a step back and realize that the Romney who ran for office twice in Massachusetts was an ideologically different candidate than the Romney who's run for president twice. That's just reality, and there are hundreds of sources that will state as much. Second, realize that the majority of political criticism of Romney for inconsistent positions and insincere conservatism and lack of core convictions has come from fellow Republican candidates in the primaries, both in 2007-2008 and 2011-2012. Who was it that kept bashing Romney as a "Massachusetts moderate" over and over? Gingrich, not Obama. Who was it who said that supporting Romneycare is inconsistent with opposing Obamacare? Santorum, not Obama. Who was it that cracked "Which one?" when asked about Romney's positions shifts? Huckabee in 2008. Who was it who said Romney "changes positions like the wind"? McCain in 2008. And so forth. Looking at this article through a partisan filter is the wrong way to go about things. But I'm out of time for this morning, will respond on the specific issues tonight ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

On the specifics:
 * 1) Beliefs about evolution was a material issue for Romney as governor, where I presume he had some direct or indirect influence on the statewide educational curriculum.  And as a presidential candidate, this has come up several times - this NYT piece for example.  You may not think it is notable or interesting, but plenty of mainstream news sources do, as well as editors here.
 * OK, I'll do the swap you mention.
 * 1) Taxation rates and cutoff points for capital gains is a major, perennial issue and a fairly fundamental one at that.  I don't think his 2007 stance counts as a "head fake" and the monies and economic theories involved are significant - not a "wonkish detail".
 * 2) I agree the selection of a healthcare policy advisory committee likely isn't of lasting import, but the proposal itself would be.  I'll have to go and look this up further.
 * 3) Talking about Roe v. Wade isn't minutae, no matter how many years ago.  I'm just talking about a text swap here, not extra.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no further response, I've gone ahead ... On #1 I've restored and rewritten the section; on #2 I did the swap (but another editor put the material swapped out back in again as well); on #3 I couldn't find solid sources that ever he supported an uncapped elimination of capital gains taxes in 2007, so I've left things the way they are; on #4 I've added a brief description of his 2007 proposal; and on #5 I've done the swap. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Housing market
I attempted to summarize a long quote on that section, here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney&curid=10001590&diff=506743320&oldid=506743122

But Arzel thinks this is not right. I am at a loss on why. Arzel, can you explain? Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted it too, and I succinctly explained why in my edit summary: You over-did the summarization, and you removed all criticism of Obama's record. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  16:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Better now? Cwobeel (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"
This Wikipedia article says, "Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in The New York Times on November 18, 2008 entitled 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.'" The following caveat was deleted: "although Romney did not write that headline, and the headline did not give an entirely accurate impression of his thinking." The edit summary provided this explanation: “removing speculative stuff and providing source that debunks that concept”. On the contrary, this is a necessary caveat, and is not speculative in the least little bit. See: The source that allegedly debunks the New York Times and Time Magazine is a bare URL: "http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/romney_in_retrospect_let_detro.html". I don't think the bare URL is a very reliable source, and in any event it says nothing to contradict the New York Times or Time Magazine. Therefore, I will restore the deleted caveat.108.18.174.123 (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ashley Parker. “Having Opposed Auto Bailout, Romney Now Takes Credit for Rebound”, Politics and Government Blog, The New York Times (March 8, 2012): “In fact, that headline was written by the paper, not Mr. Romney,  who originally submitted the piece as, 'The Way Forward for the Auto Industry.'"
 * Sam Gustin. "Does Mitt Romney Deserve Credit for Saving Detroit? Not Quite", Time Magazine (May 9, 2012): "It’s worth noting that Romney did not write the Times headline, which gives the impression that Romney thought the companies should be allowed to fail completely. He didn’t think that."

Ryan plan?
There is no mention in this article of Romney's support for Ryan's plan? Really? Cwobeel (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Because Mitt has already flipped on the issue, of course.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/why-romney-cant-run-away-from-ryans-budget/261031/ The same conservative base that's thrilled to see Paul Ryan on the GOP ticket is in love with Ryan's budget proposals -- which Romney is already backing away from.

Hcobb (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't beclown yourself this way. You can't very well say somebody has "flipped" on something when there is no evidence they supported it in the first place.  Come up with a source that says something different and we can discuss it.  Until then, you have accomplished little here besides further exposing your partisan bias.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  19:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter if Romney has evolved/flip-flopped (take your pick) on his postion on the Ryan budget. But we need to list that he supported it, and if he changes his mind we will list that as well. Cwobeel (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Simply listing Romney's every position on every vital issue would take up more space than listing every prime number, but here is where he stood pre-backflip:

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-seeks-distance-ryans-budget-plans-194311316.html During the Republican primary, Romney had called Ryan's budget a "bold and exciting effort" that was "very much needed."


 * Not that he feels that way anymore, of course. Hcobb (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You've got nuthin'. Romney praised the plan; he didn't adopt it to become his own.  Even the A.P. is more honest about this than you guys: "But the presidential candidate never said whether he embraced Ryan's austere plan himself..."  Sorry, but there just aren't any flips or flops here.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  21:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/12/678941/romney-embraced-ryan-budget/ Romney Campaign Doubles Down: He ‘Would Have Signed’ The Ryan Budget Hcobb (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty clear to me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)