Talk:Mitt Romney

romney fiddler dog on roof

The search (in the art) for "dog*" found only "conservative dogma" . Please add the subject is so popular. Google hits 'About 150,000,000 results' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been debating whether to include that story ever since I started my heavy involvement on this article a couple of years ago. One problem is that it doesn't naturally fit anywhere in the narrative. Another is that I've never been sure how widely it's impacted peoples' perception of Romney; I get NYT home delivery and columnist Gail Collins manages to mention it every single time she writes about Romney, so I get a distorted picture. Interested in what others think. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If this had been something that had been done recently it would probably be more of a story, however in 1983, at a time when few people used seatbelts or even knew they existed, it was simply not that big of a deal. I know that the left likes to make a big deal about it and goes into to prose about how the dog was probably terrified. Which itself is ironic since most dogs will stick almost their entire bodies outside the window while riding in a car if given a chance. It is little more than a political talking point from the left to claim that Romney is cruel to animals, which is simply absurd. Arzel (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As has happened before, I don't agree with Arzel's approach that any view he characterizes as a "political talking point" and that he personally finds nonmeritorious must therefore be excluded from the article. Plenty of people consider this story relevant, but even if they're all wrong, nonmeritorious attacks deserve inclusion if they become significant. That Newt Gingrich has included this in a campaign ad, as reported by MSNBC, is a good indication of significance. According to The Hill this week, the story "is spreading again on the Internet". [1] A recent article in the Los Angeles Times concludes that the story doesn't reflect all that badly on Romney, but the mere presence of the article is another indication of mainstream coverage. Even the "Dogs Against Romney" page on Facebook was mentioned on the ABC News website.[2] (Wasted, you may be interested to know that Gail Collins was interviewed on NPR about her Seamus obsession. Maybe that should go in her article?)

The Boston Globe reporter who broke the story has commented: "Although I think it would be nuts for voters to base their presidential selection solely on this incident, it’s always struck me as a valuable window into how Romney operates. In everything the guy does, he functions on logic, not emotion." [3] That Globe piece also notes that some people think Romney merely strapped the dog to the roof with some rope. We should make clear that Seamus was in a carrier with a windshield. JamesMLane t c 16:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Why am I not suprised that James would want to include this tripe. WP is not a newspaper so that some people are making political points is not really all that relevant to his BIO. I find it interesting that your sources are all political talking point articles. Probably the best reason for not including it is because 4 years ago this was a huge political talking point from animal rights activist on the left and like clockwork the left is right back at it now that a new election is on the horizon. This is hardly new news and it wasn't deemed worthy of inclusion 4 years ago, so I don't see why this second attempt should be much different. Arzel (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, might I trouble you to provide the link to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that demands the exclusion of "political talking points" and of mainstream media stories that report on them? The reason I ask is that there are other places in the encyclopedia where (what I presume is) this policy or guideline is violated. For example, the "political talking point" about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has its own entire article and is mentioned, with a wikilink, in Obama's main bio article. If I try to remove this tripe, though, some right-wing POV warrior will probably demand to know the basis for the removal. I'd like to be able to provide the answer. Thanks in advance! JamesMLane t c 22:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe that you are comparing this with Jeremiah Wright. Arzel (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that you studiously avoid stating whether the Wright thing fits into your invented category of "political talking points". The two matters are quite similar in that respect.

Are they different at all (besides one being about a Democrat and one about a Republican)? Sure they are. The Wright thing was clearly a bigger deal in terms of how loud Obama's opponents got about it. The issue with the dog incident is whether it's at least a big enough deal to be mentioned. That's why the anon who started the thread noted the Google hits, that's why Wasted queried "how widely it's impacted peoples' perception of Romney", and that's why I cited several MSM sources. All of us were making policy-based arguments.

If you're prepared to concede that there's no relevance to sneering at something as a "political talking point", maybe we can get somewhere. JamesMLane t c 20:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? If you are prepared to argue in favor of political talking points being added to Romney equal to Obama in their primary articles, then you better be prepared to argue for those talking points that are actually in the same zipcode. As for the Jeremiah Wright incident this is what is in the Obama primary article. Obama resigned from Trinity during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public. It is simply absurd to compare the two, even at their basic level. Arzel (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a left vs right thing or a campaign thing or a Jeremiah Wright thing or a Michael Vick thing. It's a quirky family history story that has captured the imagination of some people. Thanks JML for the link to the Swidey piece on this, I'm not as convinced this is a logic vs emotion deal but it did had some interesting theories about why the story has had some staying power. I'm still pondering where if anywhere in the article it could go. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It should also be noted that the dog story has long been included in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 article. It could presumably be added to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 should the press attention be enough. But wait ... now there is a dedicated article Seamus (dog)! Can WP:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) be far behind? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

When I cited the information about the Gingrich ad, it occurred to me that a mention in the campaign article would be appropriate. Is the story worth including in Romney's life outside of political campaigns? The problem with answering that question is that, in the several years since the story broke, Romney's done pretty much nothing of note except for political campaigning. JamesMLane t c 14:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that is not a very nice thing to say about Romney. He might say you have done nothing of note other than attack conservatives. It is not like he was living under a rock Arzel (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly. Membership on a corporate board (per your link), meeting a few times a year, isn't a major commitment and wouldn't be the basis for a bio. Romney himself has joked that he's been "unemployed" since his term as Governor, and more than one commentator has noted that he's essentially been running for President full time since 2007. As for your pointless little dig at me, I'll freely admit that I'm not notable enough to be the subject of an article. So what? JamesMLane t c 20:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible wording

Snopes, in reporting the incident, says: "In that Boston Globe article, the incident was pointed to as an example of Romney's emotion-free crisis management style. Others viewed it differently, regarding the mode of canine transport the dog was subjected to as unnecessarily callous and cruel." [4] That seems to be a good summary of the competing POV's on this subject. We might state the facts in a sentence or two, then quote that summary verbatim, citing Snopes. JamesMLane t c 20:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Even Fox News contributor Lanny Davis wrote, "I think anyone who puts his dog in a cage on top of a car for a 12-hour drive and then deludes himself or tries to delude others that the dog really enjoyed it — to me, with all due respect, I feel such a man shouldn’t be president of the United States." I'm no regular reader or viewer of Fox News, but it seems to me that such strong criticism of the most popular Republican presidential candidate from Fox News is unprecedented. ThFSPB (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a personal opinion citable as personal opinion if we decide by consensus that Davis is an authority on such matters, or that his opinions are generally notable. Tha fact he works for Fox is of remarkably little import in such a decision. If he is not, then his opinion is about as notable as that, say, of George Gnarph of Kalamazoo, MI. Collect (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm an Australian, so cannot vote in your election. Even if I could, I would be unlikely to vote Republican. (Even the Democratic Party is well to the right of any of our major parties.) Obviously detractors of Romney want this material here, and so you might think I would too, but I see it as the most outdated, irrelevant, undue, stupid nonsense I've seen proposed for a Wikipedia article for a long time. Get serious about this article, please, and drop this trash. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside Romney, and leaving Seamus up on the roof for the moment, let's generalize. There seems to be a difference of opinion about this scenario (which may or may not apply to inclusion of the dog incident): Suppose there's information about a political candidate that's outdated, stupid, and irrelevant to the candidate's performance in the office being sought. Suppose further that the information nevertheless receives significant attention in the mainstream media and is picked up by one of the candidate's opponents and used in television advertising. In considering inclusion, how do you weigh these factors?

I ask because I've been frustrated at other editors' failure to give a clear answer. My own view is that candidates, party committees, the mass media (and other big corporations), miscellaneous celebrities, and other non-Wikipedia entities have considerable ability to direct the public conversation and to set the agenda. Often, what they're pushing wouldn't meet Wikipedia standards (not well sourced, not neutral, given undue weight, etc.). Nevertheless, some such things do become significant parts of the public discourse -- sometimes for good reasons, sometimes because of the push they're given or because of the superficiality of the public.

What should Wikipedia do in those instances?

To me it's clear that we serve our readers by describing the world as it is. We don't set ourselves up as the Wikigeniuses who will decide what incidents may properly be considered in choosing a President (or a Prime Minister). Down that road lies the death of NPOV. Instead, we report on matters that have received significant attention, even if we think they shouldn't have.

The dog incident has received less attention than, say, Romney's term as Governor, but still a fair amount. Our obligation is to assess such factors as mainstream media coverage and opposing candidates' positions and to consider significance on that basis, not on the basis of our personal opinions of the merits. JamesMLane t c 06:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can see your point, but my thoughts on reading about the fact that this story was "picked up by one of the candidate's opponents and used in television advertising" were that it says a lot more about that opponent than it does about Romney. Maybe we include it in that opponent's article? One assumes that some wiser commentators have said something along the lines of what I have said. (Not that I'm that in touch with all of this.) If the incident is included in the Romney article, can the comments of such wiser commentators also be included? HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If we go into detail about the criticism, then I agree with you that NPOV requires a fair presentation of the opposing opinion as well. The problem is that going that route, while satisfying NPOV, would entail giving too much space to the incident. That's the reason for my suggestion at the top of this sub-thread. Instead of directly quoting the Romney critics or the people you consider "wiser commentators", we could quote Snopes's summary of the opposing views: "[T]he incident was pointed to as an example of Romney's emotion-free crisis management style. Others viewed it differently, regarding the mode of canine transport the dog was subjected to as unnecessarily callous and cruel." That would give the reader a reasonably balanced picture without cluttering the article or according the subject undue weight. Would that satisfy your concerns? JamesMLane t c 00:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Could the section start off with words to the effect of "Opponents of Romney have raised the issue of...."? HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're both off the mark. This has never had any effect on Romney's political viability nor has it ever been a major campaign issue. Rather, it's a quirky personal history item that some dog lovers and psychologically-oriented pundits have focused in on in the years since it became public. If it's included in the article it should be treated as such. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

had any ^{[citation needed]} effect on Romney's political viability . Both R, S candidates have dogged issues on roofing on dogs. Another candidate Jon Hundsman,just in case, kiss the dog & go [5] . The wording may be in section on how trustwordy is Romney: He say he and his familly love Seamus but he give dog up. It is plain fact. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. It started out as purely a quirky personal history item, so I don't think it would be appropriate to introduce it as something Romney opponents raised. On the other hand, it has figured in some of the judgments about Romney. Although it's not a major campaign issue, there has been some discussion of it in the context of praising or condemning Romney. The right balance is to introduce it as a quirky personal history item, with a sentence or two of description, but then to append the Snopes quotation about how it's been used in the political context. JamesMLane t c 06:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the BG reporter got closer with this bit in the piece you linked to above: "I think another reason for the story’s endurance is that Romney remains an enigma, the product of two of the most mysterious and least understood subcultures in the country: the Mormon Church and private-equity finance. So Seamus has become a shortcut for people trying to get a bead on a candidate whose image has shades of ageless businessman and Stepford husband." Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Another enigma is also his family illegal emigrantion to Mexico. His grempa crossed the border with no proper visa. The wording, perhaps, best to put in section about flipping. About the wording - be carefull with your language - Romney say[6] he will swamp any anemy he delclare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I've not read any of the above discussion but thought I'd comment anyway (I'm allowed! lol): FWIW, perhaps the Obama's article's handling of the Wright association might provide a clue. Garnered from the search bubble I got "...campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public After a prolonged effort to find...." So, wrt Seamus, how about something along the lines, "After it became known from an interview with Romney's sons that the family dog had once ridden on the top of his car [blah blah blah...]."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Jeremiah Wright business has no comparison to this. That was an association of Obama's that extended over many years in a significant area of his life and that had the potential for lasting political damage to Obama (after the election, Axelrod and Plouffe said the Wright fallout was the thing they got most worried about during the whole campaign). Now in the end, Obama was able to convey that he was no Wright and get past it. But it was a very significant episode in the campaign. Seamus has not been. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wright was certainly more significant, but that doesn't mean that anything less significant than Wright must be omitted. Furthermore, as a general rule, comparisons to Obama are dubious because a President of the United States is an extremely important person whose bio could reasonably include a huge amount of material. Therefore, to keep the bio manageable, quite a bit of stuff that would make it into someone else's bio must, in a President's case, be covered only in a daughter article.

The latest indication that the dog story is nontrivial is this comment from Mark Halperin of Time magazine in an interview with Gingrich: "So this issue of electability, for a lot of voters is a serious issue — I'm not kidding — Gov. Romney once putting his family dog on the roof of the car and taking him on a long trip." [7] Even if Arzel's personal opinion is that it's "tripe", we have a leading political reporter opining that it's a serious issue for "a lot of voters". JamesMLane t c 09:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd much rather ride 12 hours with a dog inside a car than with Gingrich inside. Has Leno started making jokes about the Seamus story? Then we'd know it's seeped into the mainstream American consciousness. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't normally watch Leno so I don't know. I do know that I've seen multiple cartoons on the subject. One or two make fun of the particular incident (Romney sitting on a front porch talking about it while his host restrains the host's growling dog). More often, though, they assume knowledge of the incident and use it to make a different point (family in car, grim-visaged Romney at the wheel, disconsolate dog on roof, one kid explains to another "He asked to see Dad's tax returns"). My favorite, from a few months ago, had Romney standing beside the car at a gas station, cheerfully consulting a map marked "Road to the White House". In the carrier on top of the car is an elephant, looking desperate, and saying, "Hey, cowboy, can you get me out of here? Pizza guy, what about you? Lady, please help me!" It was a clever depiction of how a big chunk of the party has desperately looked to Perry, Cain, or Bachmann to stop Romney from getting the nomination. That there are toons like these is evidence of seepage, with or without Leno. JamesMLane t c 15:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't know about Leno; Letterman's been all over it for a while now, if that counts. Of course, Letterman hardly lets a night go by without a crack about Christie's weight, either, if that's the criteria for inclusion :) , Fat&Happy (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm finally convinced and I've added it to the article. One clause of a sentence in the main text, hooked to that good Swidey perspective that was mentioned above, with an explanatory Note that goes into more detail on story and its interest. That's generally how this article generally handles such things. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wasted, I know that you're a New York Times reader, so you have an obsession about Gail Collins's obsession, but I really don't see it as being important enough for the Romney bio. The one mention in a Gingrich TV ad probably brought it to more people's attention than all of Collins's columns combined -- and even if there were fewer people, they were more important because they were South Carolina Republicans and it was during the runup to the primary. I also have some BLP concerns about saying that Collins, a living person, had an obsession. I suggest that we drop the Collins reference and mention instead that Gingrich included it in an ad. JamesMLane t c 04:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Characterization of "obsession" would need to be sourced. IAC it'd be better to let the fact of her interest in the matter speak for itself. Wall Street Journal: "The New York Times' Gail Collins has barely ever written a column about [R] without menioning Seamus the dog."[8]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That Collins is obsessed with this topic is a stone cold fact – hell, this could be a textbook example of one form of obsession. This Google search shows a number of sources that support this characterization, and it's one of the most talked-about aspects of the whole Seamus story. I've added this PolitiFact piece to the cites for the Note, because it explicitly refers to Collins as obsessed and also because it carries more Romney family reaction to the story. Re the Gingrich ad, how often has that run? Has it been a mainstay of his negative attacks, or was it a one-off? I'd only explicitly mention him if it was the former. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wasted, you weren't initially convinced that Romney's treatment of his dog was worth including, but now that it's in you seem inexplicably determined that one columnist's unusual level of interest in Romney's treatment of his dog is worth including. As I said above, it might well be worth a mention in the Gail Collins article, but I don't see it as being particularly important to the Romney bio. Even if the Gingrich ad was a one-off (which I suspect it was, although supplemented by the follow-up questioning to Gingrich by Time), it still had more of an impact on Romney than all of Collins's columns combined -- unless you think there are sources asserting that Collins's frequent mentions were all that kept the story alive over the years. JamesMLane t c 22:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not worth including, especially not in the primary article, however, if it is to be included the obsession of Collins is what is driving it. Altough I disagree on the notability of this and it is clear that it is a purely political talking point, I think that WTR initial version was quite neutral. Arzel (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I said from my very first mention that I thought Collins' obsession about it was a major aspect of the story, and I disagree with you about the effects. Repeated mentions in an opinion-making publication like the NYT is more important than a rarely-aired negative ad in one state. It's only important in Romney's bio as a quirky familiar history bit and as something that has helped form an image of him, and Collins has done more towards that than Gingrich has. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

How did Romney pay for graduate school?

Romney was 28 years old when he graduated, in 1975, from Harvard, finishing a four year program there as a graduate student. Given his four years of college and two years of LDS missionary work, that means he never had a regular (full-time) job before he left Harvard. And by the time he graduated, he and his wife had three children. So, how did he find the money to be a full-time graduate student and take care of his family, since his wife was a full-time homemaker? (And Romney definitely was a full-time graduate student; his joint MBA/law degree involved two programs which, separately, required five years in total, and his peers at Harvard have commented on how hard he worked.)

The possibilities for where the money came from (select one or more):

(a) He was a scholarship student. (b) He worked part-time. (c) He got student loans. (d) His expenses were paid for by his parents and/or his wife's parents. (e) He and/or his wife had money/assets gifted to them from their parents previously that they used. [His wife Ann said that they lived off investment income and selling some of their stocks, but it's unclear if this is at BYU or Harvard or both; see: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/117521926.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+02%2C+2002&author=JOAN+VENNOCHI&pub=Boston+Globe&desc=THE+CLASS+ACT+OF+ROMNEY+AND+HEALEY&pqatl=google ]

Regardless of which of these (or which combination of these) actually happened, how he funded his graduate school years is rather important in understanding what kind of financial hardship, if any he experienced. Wikipedia doesn't - yet - provide any answers. So, a request for editors to look for, or at least be aware of the importance of, any information on this subject. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The basement apartment in the Ann story was for BYU, see this 2007 NYT story. As for your question, I haven't seen it and it doesn't seem to be known, per this PolitiFact piece from a couple of days ago. Knowing George, I would guess he paid for Mitt's higher education but made sure he lived fairly frugally in the process. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. For graduate school, his parents helped financially so that Romney and his wife could buy a house, to live in while he attended Harvard. That seems worth adding to the article, though I'd prefer a source other than PolitiFact. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I still don't see much significance in this. It's the normal case for parents pay for their children's college education when they can afford to. They don't usually buy a house as part of the process, but Mitt was a little older than most students and already had two children. The article doesn't say that his parents paid for his expensive private school education at Cranbrook either, but I think the reader can assume that. Indeed I think the reader can assume his parents supported him until his consulting career started in 1975. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Political positions

There is far too much focus on the neo-Marxist vanity project of homosexual identity politics in this section (under "gay rights"). There are far more significant aspects to focus on, for example, explaining where Romney stands on a potential Israeli conflict with Iran (which could lead to World War Three), how he proposes to fix the economy, where he stands on immigration. Homosexuals constitute a tiny fragment of the population yet they are the primary focus in this section of a man who may be the next president of the world's only superpower. [15:56, January 23, 2012‎ 90.205.6.125]

We neo-Marxists know that in the Information Age, the only way to control the means of production is to control Wikipedia. Thus we hide from you that Romney has a secret plan to start World War III by obscuring it with all the verbiage about gay rights in this section ... Actually, in the reality-based community, this section has all of about twelve words total on gay rights, and that's only because it was one of the package of social issues that he is most famously known for changing his views on. For what almost everything else, see Political positions of Mitt Romney. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This article ready for F A nom?

Toolbox
Alt text Citation Bot Disambig links Edit count External links Peer review Redirects Ref Links

Although a tiny "cadre" of Wasted Time R is currently especially active at this blp of Mitt Romney, I myself have essentially watch-listed it over a lengthy period and having reviewed it, believe it to be, at present, at a very complete level of development and certainly at that worthy of review. E/g- per the following official criteria--

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles,Y[Note: see below*] it has the following attributes.
It is—
(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;Y
(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;Y
(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;Y
(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; andY
(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.Y
It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
(a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;Y
(b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;Y and
(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes () or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.Y
Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.Y
Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).Y
__________

* [Quote]: A Wikipedia article, or entry, is a page that has encyclopedic information on it. A well written encyclopedia article
identifies a notable encyclopedic topic,Y
summarizes that topic comprehensively,Y
contains references to reliable sources,Y
will have a reading list,Y and
will link to other related topics.Y

Any feedback? -- Thanks.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Seconded! As a Featured Article, it would be very timely. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's ready. Maybe after George W. Romney gets done it's FA nomination we can nominate it. Like Hodgdon's secret garden, I've not been a main contributor, but I've had it on my watchlist for a while and would be glad to help however I can. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is at rough FAC level of content and presentation, but I haven't done the fine-tooth combing you need to before FAC. Furthermore I already have an article up there, George W. Romney, and there's a one-at-a-time limit since it's a lot of work to respond to all the comments there. Another concern is that all the currently involved editors need to be convinced this article is ready – earlier today, one of those editors put an improvement tag on this article, which would be an immediate disqualifier at FAC. So that has to get worked out. Finally, it would be good to know whether Romney is the presumptive nominee or not, assuming it gets settled in the next month or so. But overall, yes, I want to take it to FAC, just not right now. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I recommend a peer review by an experienced, uninvolved editor before going to FAC. —Eustress ^talk 19:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Article structure and "Legacy" section

I know about BRD, but I think it's better if radical changes in the article section section are discussed first. I have strong objections to the change that was made that created a top-level section "Legacy" at the end (this section title is usually only for people who are retired or dead), "Church and community service" (what community service? George yes, Mitt no), and "Philanthropy" (most of Mitt's giving is to church, which is a different kettle of fish; "Philanthropy" sections should be reserved for articles like Bill Gates or Andrew Carnegie where that is one of the central aspects of their lives).

So I've reverted back to the previous structure. I do realize that the "Business career" section is stretching its bounds, so I modified the title to "Business career and wealth", which conveys both the time at BCG-B&C-BC and the money that continues to come in through that. "Local church leadership" belongs where it is in the chronology, because unlike what somebody changed, Mitt never had another significant lay clergy position after he ran for Senate in 1994. I remain committed to the belief that a chronological organization is best for this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand the desire to maintain a chronological order, but some things (like church service, wealth/philanthropy) overlap with his business/government jobs, which is why tried to pull them out (see diff). (btw, FA Barack Obama also has a philanthropy section.) —Eustress ^talk 16:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Obama "Philanthropy" section was only just added yesterday, by one of the editors here. It seems spurious to me. People with a lot of money will often give some of it away, but that does not in itself make one a notable philanthropist in a biographical sense. There has to be some large commitment of time, vision, purpose, human capital, etc towards philanthropic goals. Neither Obama or Romney do this, so neither article should have a "Philanthropy" section. And yes, chronological organization is never perfect, but I think Romney's wealth is better discussed before his political career sections than after it, since it all has come (and continues to come) from Bain Capital and since his wealth fueled all of his campaigns before this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

My having read lots of Wasted Time R's posts on wiki talkpages over the years, as soon as my synapses realized that my eyes were about to skim over a reference he was going to be making to an edit of mine, my body did a Pavlovian um "wince." And, sure enough, he says, "that was done by an editor from this article" (perhaps I'm paraphrasing), and my "internal decoder" sort of hears Wasted Time R's tone being as though he had said "that idiot guy who edits here." Then my eye's metaphorical leg, whoa!, trips over the word spurious.

True story. An editor we'll call Joe notes that Barack Obama gives to charity. Not everyone does, you know. So--just as our friend and admittedly good editor Wasted Time R believes it important to note bio subjects' honorary degrees and the like--this editor, Joe, put this info on the Obama page. Joe didn't re-read the whole 'Bama article. Joe simply quickly saw a reasonable placement and popped it in there, figuring that that page's keepers would eventually see to its best placement elsewhere, if necessary, or even its entire removal. (Thereafter another editor added stuff to the information, by the way; but, as of yet, no-one has found a better placement for it.) But--spurious?

1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine: spurious poems attributed to Shakespeare.

2. Not trustworthy; dubious or fallacious: spurious reasoning; a spurious justification.

---American Heritage D.

Well, here's the def to yet another word.

noun.  A person who demonstrates an exaggerated conformity or propriety, especially in an irritatingly arrogant or smug manner.---Amer. Her.

;~) <..that's a wink!>--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant 'spurious' in the mildest sense of these definitions (dubious or invalid reasoning), and as you are someone who loves to play with words on these pages, I didn't think you would mind. Sorry if you did. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Romney family

Pending talkpage discussion, I've tentatively restored content that was recently removed from the article: the sentence dealing with the R's political family, found in the section dealing with his heritage. Related articles about notable families are linked to in biographies on WP. Eg, cf.:

1. Final graf at the blp for novelist Brady Udall reads "Udall is a member of the Udall family...";  As an aside, the Udall-Lee(-Hamblin-Hunt-Stewart-Kimball) family has three of its members currently in the U.S. Senate: 2 Democrats and 1 Republican.
2. the lede at Charlotte Brontë begins "Charlotte Brontë ( /ˈbrɒnti/; 21 April 1816 – 31 March 1855) was an English novelist and poet, the eldest of the three Brontë sisters...";
3. Bobby Kennedy's lede, which reads "An icon of modern American liberalism and member of the Kennedy family...";
4. 2nd sentence of Jeb Bush's blp reads, "He is a prominent member of the Bush family...."

As an aside, I believe what the guidelines disapprove of is belabored genealogical musing in biographies. Eg, perhaps a portion of the following info would more properly fit in a sub-article of some kind?

• (1st graf below lede at article Teddy Roosevelt):

  Main article: Roosevelt family.

  "Roosevelt often described his ancestry as "half Irish and half Dutch."[6] The Roosevelt family, colonists of Dutch origin, had been in New York since the mid-17th century. Roosevelt was born into considerable wealth, for the family by the 19th century had grown in wealth, power, and influence from the profits of several businesses, including hardware and plate-glass importing. The family was strongly Democratic in its political affiliation until the mid-1850s, and then joined the new Republican Party. Theodore's father, known in the family as "Thee", was a New York City philanthropist, merchant, and partner in the family glass-importing firm Roosevelt and Son. "Father," as the children called him, was an ardent Unionist, a prominent supporter of Abraham Lincoln and the Union effort during the American Civil War. His mother Martha "Mittie" Bulloch was a Southern belle from a slave-owning family in Roswell, Georgia, and she maintained Confederate sympathies. Mittie's brother, Theodore's uncle, James Dunwoody Bulloch, was a United States Navy officer who became a Confederate admiral and naval procurement officer and secret agent in Britain. Another uncle, Irvine Bulloch, was a midshipman on the Confederate raider CSS Alabama; both remained in England after the war.[7]

  Theodore Roosevelt was distantly related by birth to the 32nd president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (they were fifth cousins), and he was the uncle of Franklin D. Roosevelt's wife, Eleanor Roosevelt.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The info about the Pratt-Romney clan was removed in part due to its being unsourced. I feel a little silly searching for a source that Mitt Romney belongs to the Pratt-Romney clan but of course didn't have to look very hard.

1. How's this from earlier this month in the New York Times: "The Romney and Huntsman families — two intertwined clans that go back to the early days of Mormonism — publicly split in 2008 when Mr. Huntsman, then the Utah governor, endorsed Mr. McCain."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Another one, dated 4 days later, from the Salt Lake Trib, titled "No love lost between cousins Romney and Huntsman": "...Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman share the same ancestor, early Utah settler and Mormon leader Parley Parker Pratt, though the two presidential candidates carry a lingering grudge that has seemingly grown wider on the campaign trail."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
3. "The precipitous mountain pass that led the pioneers down into the Salt Lake Valley was first explored by my great-great-grandfather, Parley P. Pratt."---Turnaround, by Mitt Romney (2004 - link)
4. "...young Gaskell Romney married a Pratt girl, Anna Amelia. ... Anna Pratt Romney, George's mother, belonged to the bluestockings of the Mormon establishment."---Romney's Way: A Man and an Idea (1968)
5. "Gaskell returned to Mexico and married Anna Amelia Pratt, who would become Mitt Romney's grandmother. Anna was descended from one of the most important families in the Mormon...."---The Real Romney (2012)

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Good job finding quality sources for this and for his national heritage. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Genealogy

Claims made which are not specifically made by a reliable source about genealogy do not belong in any BLP. In the case at hand, the sources do not make the claims made. Posted at WP:BLP/N. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither "source" says anything whatsoever about "Pratt-Romneys." Neither source says anything about "genealogically interconnected". Neither source says anything about "political family". In short - the sources are being used to back a claim they do not make and which they can not even be inferred as making. Thus a groiss violation of WP:BLP. Cheers - but backing a BLP violation as well as an absolute sourcing violation (asserting that a source says something it does not say) is a major problem on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)And what WP guideline says that [your first post]? Or is it your own rule? And come on, this doesn't need to go to BLP/N, it can be resolved here by us reasonable folks.

However, looking at this further, I'm not so sure about the text we had. I see two sources for Romney being sixth-generation LDS (Jan Shipps as quoted in the New Yorker piece and the Alana Semuels piece in the LA Times) but now I also see some sources for him being fifth-generation (this CBS News page, this Reuters page). As I count it, it's five: Parley Pratt - Helaman Pratt - Anna Amelia Pratt - George - Mitt. Or, as this CSM story that was used as a cite says, GGGF - GGF - GF - F - Mitt. Right? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The rules about claims being in a reliable source are at WP:RS. That is whay we have sources FGS. We have no reliable sources as to how many generations are involved, and I suspect the weight which should be assigned to "number of generations" is quite nearly zero, And still zero reliable sources for the rest of the stuff - including the "Pratt-Romney" stuff. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC) In fact no news articles nor books support the "Pratt-Romney" existence as notable in any way at all. Collect (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are three statements in question:

1. Descended from a genealogically interconnected political family sometimes known as the Pratt–Romneys
2. Romney is a somethingth-generation member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
3. Through his father, he is a great-great-grandson of early LDS leader Parley P. Pratt.

Is your position that none of these should be in the article? In that case, there would be nothing that tells the reader that Romney is descended from some of the earliest founders of the LDS Church. Are you disputing on factual grounds that Romney is of that descent? Or do you think it's true but irrelevant to the article? Is there some alternate text that you would propose? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There are ZERO RS sources for "Pratt-Romney". Thus claims using that term are unsourced. There are ZERO sources that such a family is a "political family" Thus it is unsourced. There are ZERO sources for that unsourced family being "geanealogically interconnected." That claim is also unsourced. There are ZERO reliable sources for Romney's genealogy. Thus claims about his genealogy are unsourced. ALL unsourced claims must be removed per WP:BLP. I can find sources for him being a descendant of Pratt, but that is about it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

When you first pulled Pratt-Romney from the article, I looked into it and came to the same conclusion you have, that the name and the WP article on it is a little OR/SYNTHish. But I have a greater tolerance for mild forms of that than most editors, and I thought that Hodgdon's newly added sources established support for the kernel behind the idea, so I was okay with Hodgdon's restoration. But if you can take Pratt–Romney family to AfD and it goes down, then that will certainly solve statement #1 ... Wasted Time R (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No need when WP:BLP is clear and states the claims which are not supported must be removed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratt–Romney family is now up (done by someone not involved in this discussion). Wasted Time R (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think his descent from Pratt is in dispute, but even if we have to take it out now, a reliable source should appear if Romney gets the nomination. There's always some newspaper article about the candidates' ancestry. Gary Boyd Roberts is usually quoted. So let's just wait and see? In the meantime, I'll look for a RS.--Coemgenus (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Going back to statement #2, the family lines descending from the Mormon pioneers are very well known, since it's something they study a lot. The question is just the count of generations. Via the 'Romney line', it's also five, per BG series part 2: Miles Archibald Romney (converted) - Miles Park Romney - Gaskell Romney - George - Mitt. I think Jan Shipps must have miscounted and the LAT took it from WP (happens more often than you think). Wasted Time R (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand why you took out the Pratt-Romney sentence, but why delete "Through his father, he is a great-great-grandson of early LDS leader Parley P. Pratt."? That had two reliable sources. It's also in Romney's book, at p. 2. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

All Hallow's Wraith restored the previous text for #2 and #3, and I have now modified it to indicate Mitt is fifth generation and also to include Miles Archibald Romney as another ancestor. When two of your great-great-grandfathers became members of a new church within its first few years of existence, that's something worth describing. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If and only if reliable sources find it important enough to publish. An editor here may find something to be "interesting" but unless a WP:RS reliable source thinks so as well, we can not use it. Collect (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

They do, and are used as the sources in the cites, and I've now added the two profile pages mentioned above that explicitly use the 'fifth-generation' description as cites as well. One thing I've seen in looking around news stories today is that Mormons fairly often identify themselves by how many generations they are (in the same way that descendants of immigrants to the U.S. often do). So I think the usage is appropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As Wasted Time R says, Mormons are at the forefront of genealogical matters. In fact, those moving into the Intermountain West among Mormons often become surprised at the seeming tribalness this factor renders some discussions. So, in any case, a typical, high-profile LDS biography on Wikipedia of someone from a Mormon bluestocking clan (the majority of those in positions of influence among them--"bluestocking" is tongue-in-cheek: in LDS parlance, it's simply "So-and-so is of the Kimballs," or, collectively, such expressions as "...is from pioneer stock")...um, typically goes something like the following.

"Spencer W. Kimball"

... "Through his aunt Helen Mar Kimball, he was a nephew of Joseph Smith, Jr..

Early life. Kimball was born in Salt Lake City, Utah Territory to Andrew Kimball and Olive Woolley, sister of Mormon pioneer and eventual Mormon fundamentalist John W. Woolley. When Spencer was three, his father was called to preside as president of the St. Joseph stake and his family relocated to the town of Thatcher in southeastern Arizona.

(The WP article on the clan Kimball belonged to is Kimball–Snow–Woolley family.) In any case--at least in my opinion--

1. the fact of the Pratt and Romney families' interconnectedness is easy to document (and was mentioned in the New York Times in early January 2012); yet, whereas, per wp:NEO, article titles are free to render complicated subjects in a straightforward way, they should avoid producing their own coinages that might slip into the language, simply due to the fact that we seek only to be a tertiary source (that's why the Obama family is more appropriately termed the "Family of Barack Obama" on WP; hence hyphenated forms, such as the Lee–Hamblin family, etc., while useful, perhaps should be recast in a similar manner as the Obama family has been);
2. the assertion that interconnected clans are genealogical is simply redundant (and should be removed for that alone (yet, of course, per wp:SYNTH, patently obvious statements are not guilty of improper "synthesis");
3. that Romney is from a political family unfortunately remains unsourced;
4. what generation of Mormon Romney is is the type of information that people come to Wikipedia to seek the sources for and go to the Romney family article to learn about (yet is maybe "too much information" for his blp? I don't know...).

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Find a WP:RS source for them being a single entity,. It is improper for Wikipedia to make such a connection without a reliable source meeting WP:BLP standards. That is how WP:BLP operates. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

R from political family?

I'll try to source question below.

1. VOA Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, had a successful career as a ... of the more moderate Republican candidates, comes from a political family.
2. Boston Globe Romney grew up in a political family
3. Detroit News Republican Mitt Romney is looking to Michigan, where he grew up in a high- profile business and political family
4. Miami Herald Born to privilege in a political family, Romney's youth was a succession of prep
5. National Review Willard Mitt Romney, 58 years old, was born into a prominent political family
6. Reuters Canada Polls show Romney, a former Massachusetts governor who was raised in Michigan as part of a famous political family, running neck-and-neck with Arizona Sen. John McCain

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH applies as do WP:BLP and WP:RS. Cheers but it does not work. Collect (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I hate SYNTH as much as the next editor, but I think you're taking it a bit far here, Collect. Maybe "Pratt-Romney" is something made up on Wikipedia, but the idea that there is a Romney family that has several politicians in it is not SYNTH, nor is a family tree where all the links are attested. If making data into a chart is SYNTH, every chart on here is SYNTH, whether it be sports standings, election results, or whatever. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

User Collect, I've made an edit (here) that downplays the whole "Leading family in Mormondom" aspect and just puts in a link at "Romneys' ancestors"--which might at least address some of the inherent synth problems, perhaps?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I further changed this to just make the (newly renamed) family article a 'See also' xref. The text itself now just covers the original points #2 and #3 above. I think this works best: it doesn't place any sourcing burden for the significance of an extended political family on this article, and if the family article loses at AfD, the 'see also' can simply be removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably for the best. The two cites were really abt clan Huntsman vs. the Romneys, n.e.way: a bit afield for a blp (tho not for a family article itself, of course).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Frugality

“	Known for being frugal to a fault, Romney does not seem to particularly relish spending his fortune. He likes data, and his piles of dollars seem to be mainly markers to keep score of his success.	”
—New York magazine, January 2012

I don't know if my own opinion of this recent quote from noted essayist Frank Rich (on right margin) is that it should be considered notable qua opinion or else considered notable qua a source for the subject's legendary thrift or else should be considered not to be notable.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Opinion. Undoubtedly. 98.118.74.184 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)theCapnVideo

"Known [by whom?]", "Romney does not seem...", "His piles of dollars seem...." -- this is pure opinion. WP:NPOVIT says, "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Not only is this quote unencyclopedic and particularly problematic for a BLP but it is also the opinion of a left-wing writer who is highly engaged in the left-right dispute. For these reasons, I believe this quote is unacceptable for inclusion here, especially as a stand-out quote. —Eustress ^talk 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Frank Rich is an excellent writer who makes some really good observations, including in this New York mag piece. Frank Rich is also a diehard liberal with an agenda who's willing to skew every fact in sight to align with his viewpoint, including in this New York mag piece. It's marginal as a quote to include at all and certainly shouldn't be highlighted as a side block quote (why this one and not ones half a dozen other good writers have made?). I think the only block quotes in BLPs should be ones the subject him/herself has made. Ted Kennedy is an example which highlights his three most famous/consequential speeches (RFK eulogy, rallying cry at convention, Robert Bork's America). Question is, what if anything has Romney ever said that's made a big impression? Not much ... maybe something from Faith in America speech? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)