Talk:Mitt Romney

Please edit

In section "Personal Wealth": "In 2010, Romney and his wife received $21.7 million in income, almost all of it from investments such as such as dividends, capital gains, and carried interest." --Minzminz (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Whitewashing

"A portion of Romney's financial assets are held in offshore accounts and investments". Read the source. Cwobeel (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This post originally read that a portion of his assets were held in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland (and now it seems it's been completely deleted). I still say this is significant and should be included. Again and again we hear the argument that it isn't noteworthy. How about this, if someone can find proof that any other president in the last 50 years had an account in the Caymans, then we'll drop this. If it's so common and irrelevant then show us some other presidents who have held assets there. If they exist, then you're right, the information is irrelevant. If they don't, then it is significant, as no other president has maintained these sorts of assets.Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How does it possibly make it relevant if no other President has had money in the Caymans? Uniqueness doesn't factor into it, where he has bank accounts is an incredibly insignificant fact from the propsective of his overall life. Now if it became the focus of the campaign or if he loses the race and that is shown to be a significant reason or the like then maybe. Mostly it's an item that, if anywhere, should go in an article on the 2012 presidential race. I'm no fan of Romney, so don't even accuse me of bias, because my bias is definitely going in the opposite direction. But I have to say that obviously this is irrelevant trivia in a bio. We're not talking about a crime for which he's been arrested, while legally keeping money in a Cayman Island bank account may be an area of concern for voters it's not a worthwhile topic for an encyclopedic biography.Jdlund (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is nice to see you present your bias so clearly. No need to fill up his bio with democratic talking points and imply that he is doing something illegal. Arzel (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Trivia. Arkon (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Arzel's response is that it's a Democratic talking point. If he's right, then it's not trivia.

Arzel is wrong on the matter of illegality; it appears that Romney legally ducked taxes. However, legally ducking taxes might be embarrassing, and that is apparently why Arzel wants it stricken from the record.

So, no matter how you interpret it, the reasons for not mentioning the specific locations of these banks can only be whitewashing, just as Jason said.

In the meantime, this is a good moment for me to remind Arzel that statements of the form "if x happens, then y" are not predictions of the sort that WP:CRYSTAL applies to. Nobody is saying he will or won't become president, only what necessarily follows if he did. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Legally ducked taxes" what exactly is that supposed to mean? I suppose the opposite would be that he didn't "Stupidly pay more taxes than required by law". Why does the left view others peoples money as theirs which was taken from them? Arzel (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

None of your comment is in argument of inclusion other than personal attacks and agenda driven drivel. Arkon (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA are three policies your comment violates. Do you want to say anything relevant to building a better article? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to do something about your imaginary violations. In the meantime you might want to make a substantial argument for your actions. Arkon (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And to preempt you, yes, I've lost good faith with you. AGF is not a suicide pact. Arkon (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, then you're not going to be able to interact with me productively. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And speaking of not being productive, you do not have anything approaching a consensus for removing the section about how rich he is. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know better. Consensus to -remove-? Really? Arkon (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If we removed anything that both you and Arzel objected to, there wouldn't be an article left. So, no, that's not sufficient. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And you again put your competence to shame. Please, count out the edits I've made to this page. Stop trolling. Arkon (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Who collapsed this thread? Leave it visible for discussion. I think that the offshore accounts are notable and should be covered. They've been the subject of multiple news articles. I also think it's bad form to use an article talk page to accuse another editor of trolling. If you have evidence of trolling, go present it at WP:ANI, but first read WP:BOOMERANG. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, every time we try to have a serious discussion on this point it devolves into name calling and uncivility of various incarnations. It's clearly not trivia, or else people wouldn't feel so strongly about it. There was a tentative compromise reached (that made no one happy but at least it was a compromise), but even that compromise was ultimately deleted.Jasonnewyork (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That is an illogical statement. I feel strongly about not including stupid trivia on articles all the time. The fact is, this trivia is being used as a Democratic talking point to imply that Romney is doing something bad or immoral. This not only makes it Trivia, but POV pushing as well. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Look up the definition of trivia. It can't be both trivia (unimportant) and a dem talking point (important enough to highlight on a campaign trail).Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are missing the obvious. Democratic Talking Points are not important, hence they are trivial. Even moreso this year as the Dems can't seem to decide which talking point to stick with. Is Romney a far steadfast right radical or a flip-flopper without any core beliefs? Is Romney rich and out of touch and an evil business owner or a radical theologist that will use the whitehouse to promote the morman religion? Is he a warhawk or weak? Look, if you want to go work on the Obama campaign, then by all means, go right ahead, just don't do it here. Arzel (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you capable of making a statement without including an ad hominem attack with it? Because that's what you've done in every single one of your comments. It seems you're violating Wiki civility rules pretty consistently. That aside, under the trivia clause it states clearly in the wiki lore that you cannot use "trivia" as a reason for exclusion.Jasonnewyork (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Where did you read that? To start with, such is firmly embedded within wp:undue/wp:npov. North8000 (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

From the trivia guidelines within Wikipedia itself. Let me quote it for you:

• • This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.
  • This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.
  • This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policiesJasonnewyork (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The questions I'd ask about the offshore accounts are: Is he in full control of them (as opposed to being governed by a blind trust)? Has he used them to lower his tax burden? Are the amounts in them numerically significant, compared to his overall wealth? If the answer to all of these is 'no', I don't see the importance of these accounts, no matter where they are located. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

After reading the all the comments, I can no longer view Arzel as objective when it comes to edits on this page. You need to recuse yourself. Larylich (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Um -- I think you should understand that editors do not "recuse" themselves on Wikipedia, nor can I find any indication that you have been involved in any discussion at all on this topic, thus your "no onger view" seems a teensy bit odd here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

After reading all the comments on this page, I chose to enter it; we all have to begin somewhere. Arzel clearly has a proven a bias in his comments (on this page) and that will effect what gets put in, or left out of the article. Larylich (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it odd that an editor with almost no edit history would jump in here an attack me. What comment led you to this conclusion? Arzel (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't. Don't be coy; there's good reason why your behavior might be noticed. Still, I don't think the topic ban path outlined below is worth pursuing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If following WP policies is a badge of shame, then it is one I will wear proudly. What is this topic ban you are throwing about, I am not the one here trying to use WP for politiking. Arzel (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm explaining that, as it's unlikely you'll voluntarily recuse yourself, the closest thing is a topic ban. I am, at the same time, not endorsing such a ban. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That is rich. You are the subject of a possible topic ban, (one which I have not endorsed to this point I should say, because of your battleground attitude), and you only antagonize the issue further by suggesting that I should get a topic ban? I think I will support a topic ban on you because it is clear you have no intention of ever working collaboratively with anyone that does not hold your personal beliefs. Arzel (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read what I actually wrote. I am not endorsing a topic ban for you. I'm explaining that a topic ban is the closest thing Wikipedia has to forcing someone to recuse themselves. You're free to support or oppose a topic ban for me, but it would be nice if you based it on actually understanding what I said. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We are all biased, but some of us believe our bias is truth, which makes us unable to edit neutrally. I won't defend Arzel, but the reality is that he's not going to voluntarily recuse himself. There is an involuntary process, but it's complicated. I know about it because it's being aimed at me right now, but the short version is an RFC/U followed by a trip to ANI. The short version is much shorter than the reality. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"...some of us believe our bias is truth, which makes us unable to edit neutrally." Congratulations on recognizing your problem. In light of this, a topic ban should be voluntarily self-imposed. Belchfire-TALK 01:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of you. Physician, heal thyself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There's some serious irony in what you just said. You do see it, right? Naapple (Talk) 06:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

What quotes from Arzel show bias? "Why does the left view others peoples money as theirs which was taken from them?", replying to someone's point of view: "Look, if you want to go work on the Obama campaign, then by all means, go right ahead, just don't do it here." and "Democratic Talking Points are not important, hence they are trivial." He has not supported any proposed negative topic additions here on the talk page. He's spoken negatively toward Democrats in general throughout this page. Now he's supporting a ban of someone who doesn't agree with him. This shows bias. It's fine to hold a political view, but that must not get in the way of keeping an open mind toward criticism on the side you favor. And, yes, I'm new. Larylich (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you even hear yourself Larylich? Arzel is obviously attempting to run off any editors who show signs of liberalism. This article has changed quite a bit this past two months and not for the better. Please make some effort to be neutral, versus filtering out everything that could be read wrong by someone. This article used to indicate that Mitt was dating a teenager when he went to college and now that is glossed over as well as many other potentially damaging facts. 72.11.140.159 (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mitt and Ann were high school sweethearts. They started dating when he was a senior and she was sophomore, two years apart. This has happened approximately a zillion times in American high school life. But unlike most such cases, they later got married. And amazingly enough, they are still two years apart in age. Some editors who lost their minds thought this was a 'damaging fact' and removed that Ann was two years younger from this article. Yes, they were fools to do this. But it isn't a damaging fact, not in the slightest, and anybody who checks the birth dates across the two articles can reconstruct this for themselves. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If your only example of whitewashing is the fact that Mitt and Ann are 2 years apart and that this was allegedly removed to whitewash over "potentially damaging facts" then I think we're sitting pretty good on neutrality. Naapple (Talk) 06:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

How is having a pro-conservative moderating this page good for the article? That's a fox guarding the hen house. You need a neutral moderator and Arzel is not neutral. Larylich (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nor is Arzel a "moderator" (a position that doesn't exist on Wikipedia) or an administrator. So what's your point, exactly? Fat&Happy (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Arzel is a moderator? Why didn't anyone bring that up at our secret Koch Bros IRC channel? Naapple (Talk) 06:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I was a moderator/administrator on a now defunct Scam busting website/messageboard, but that is the only moderating I have done. Larylich is new, however, and may not fully understand how WP works. Arzel (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

October 12, 2007? There's a difference between new and non-contributing. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you like the new black background?

On the main picture: File:Mitt_Romney_by_Gage_Skidmore_6.jpg — Harpsichord246 (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that's terrible. Revert it back. ViriiK (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll expand. Look at the change that Gabe made to the picture. He took out the grey from the picture that was noticeably obvious but left the blue which you removed. Leave the blue in since it makes him stick out rather than him being a part of the black background. ViriiK (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• That is the same blue background but without the weird blue bar coming out of his head. Harpsichord246 (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the "weird" bar is a necessary part to define where the background is. Right now, it looks like he's a part of the background. ViriiK (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to wait for someone else to comment before changing it back. Harpsichord246 (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, your image is already uploaded to commons. Do not change it back until you allow people to review your image proposal change vs the original which has been the default for months. Your proposed change vs Current image ViriiK (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is that you removed a chunk of his hair, readjusted some parts of his hair, made the background extremely black that it literally matches his hair color thus merging him into the background. ViriiK (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Where does his hair start and where does the background begin? It's good effort and all, but I think I like the original.Naapple (Talk) 07:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It may look good on some screens, but on my laptop, the hair, the suit, and the background have no clear delineation. HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the original image Gage Skidmore's Flickr Account ViriiK (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

In general, messing with any picture of a living person is a bad idea. During campaign season it's even worse. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Seb_az86556; when in doubt, go with the actual image that the camera took. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that is fair enough. Harpsichord246 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mostly all the original picture needs is some gamma correction. That increases the contrast in the darker areas. SteveBaker (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem on related article

Mitt Romney dog incident could use some additional attention as there is an edit-warring problem. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There's always edit warring there. But if it bothers you, get the admins to put it under the community sanctions umbrella. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As an election-related article, I believe it already is. There's also specific edit-warring that concerns me, but I'd rather not bias anyone by discussing it in any depth. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was only those articles where clicking Edit gives you the pink "WARNING This article is under a community general sanction until 11 December 2012. ..." banner that are under sanction. But maybe I'm wrong. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, all election-related articles are under community probation. The first thing an admin would do when encountering bad behavior in such an article is to add the template that displays the warning and leave template warnings on the talk pages of the editors who are behaving badly. That's likely what should happen to Mitt Romney dog incident. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If ya'all see anything, feel free to give me a heads up. It seems like it's only me patrolling these articles and I can't do it all. You are also welcome to add the warning and put the general sanctions general sanctions warning on user talk pages; that's not limited to sysops but the warning of sanctions is a requirement before sanctions can be enforced.--v/r - TP 00:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Text on Mormon factor in 2012 election

I'm removing this text from the 2012 campaign section:

Romney has also largely shied away from discussing his Mormon faith on the 2012 campaign trail.[14] Political theorists have noted that were he to highlight his religion, he could run the risk of alienating voters; as a June 2012 Gallup poll found that 18 percent of Americans would not vote for a Mormon for U.S. President, and more than 40 percent of Americans were still unaware that Romney was even a Mormon.[14][339]

There are several problems with it. Most of it is a copyvio in wording from the HuffPo piece given as a source. The first sentence is no longer fully accurate, since Romney's time as church leader in the Boston area was highlighted at the convention (see this BG story for example). The 'political theorists' label is inaccurate as well, this is really just the opinion of the one HuffPo writer. And that conclusion is largely contradicted by the Gallup Poll source that was given, which says that "It is unclear how the current level of resistance to the idea of voting for a Mormon presidential candidate will affect the election. History shows that these types of attitudes in and of themselves are not an impediment to victory. For example, a May 1960 Gallup poll found that 21% of Americans said they would not vote for a well-qualified candidate who was a Catholic, but Catholic John F. Kennedy went on to win the presidency that fall." The 40 percent unaware figure is interesting but at the end of the day isn't having an impact on the race either. There have been a spate of articles in Politico and elsewhere in recent days about why Romney's campaign has been faltering, but his Mormonism has not been one of the reasons listed.

I agree that the effect of Mormonism on this campaign should be included in this article, but after the election is over and after political scientists have had a chance to analyze how much of a factor, if any, it was. This is how it's handled in the section about his 2008 candidacy. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't waiting until after the election a classic case of ignoring the elephant in the room? I'm not American, so won't be voting. It also means I know little about Mormonism. I would truly be interested in how it will/might/could influence a President. HiLo48 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wasted Time R. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We can wait a couple of months before jumping to conclusions about the effect of Mormonism, per WP:RECENT. Cresix (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

His Mormonism isn't news, nor is it recent. It's been part of his whole life, and presumably will continue to be. It must have an effect on what he would do if elected. Surely it's an issue? HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Of course his Mormonism isn't new, but the issue of its impact on the current Presidential election is much more recent, especially since no other Mormon has been a candidate. It was the same for JFK and Catholicism in 1960; only with the passage of time could we have the appropriate perspective in that election. And since we're in the midst of the current campaign, I think it's premature for Wikipedia to have very much speculation. That's for the newspapers, news magazines, and political commentators; if you want more information right now, I suggest consuming that information from those sources. After the election, there will be no shortage of information that can be compiled and reduced to encyclopedic proportions. There is no rush. Cresix (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The Obama campaign declared it 'off limits' early on (see this LAT story with a statement by Axelrod, for example). The attacks on Romney have focused on his business background and practices (Bain Capital layoffs and offshoring, etc) and his economic worldview (47% are moochers, etc), not his religion. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're not Obama, nor do we take orders from him. The fact that Romney would be the first Mormon president is significant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying that Wikipedia must take orders from Obama. And the key words in your comment are "would be". We can wait until it actually happens (or doesn't happen). It's significant, but it's not urgent for an encyclopedia. Cresix (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I truly don't understand. I am interested. Something like Mormonism is a presumably a significant part of someone's persona. Maybe Americans think they know what it means, because they see a lot more of Mormonism, but we don't see many Mormons where I come from, so I'm truly interested. I don't see it as a positive or negative. (Obviously I don't get to vote.) I'm just interested. Leaving it until later looks an awful lot like censorship to me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, JFK's Catholicism was in many ways a bigger issue before he got elected than after. So, yes, I agree with HiLo48. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly not censorship, which on Wikipedia means removing content because someone might find it offensive (such as nudity); such censorship is not allowed. The issue is WP:RECENT. There's a big difference. Click the links to read the difference. The election is six weeks away; there is no urgency to adding a lot more to the article until the election is over and the analysis of the impact on Mormonism gets into full swing. As a comparison, when Clint Eastwood made his "empty chair" speech at the Republican convention, editors tried to flood the article with extensive details. It was a daily battle to keep that section of the article down to reasonable proportions. Now that the dust has settled, however, WP:RECENT has become more apparent and the event is not seen as a huge event in the overall life of Eastwood; very little editing to that section has occurred in the last few days. Similarly, we need to let the dust settle on the impact of Mormonism on the current election before we load the article up with details. As for JFK, I didn't state that the issue was not big before the election; my point is that we could only understand clearly the impact of JFK's Catholicism with the passage of time after the election. Cresix (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Clint Eastwood comparison is just silly. That was a one-off event, and actually wasn't about Romney. It should never have been considered for inclusion. But Romney's Mormonism is lifelong (well, so far anyway). And why should the content of this global encyclopaedia depend on the date of an election in one country? HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This article talks about Romney's Mormonism a lot, in several different sections. That's not the point. What's at issue is the specific text that I removed, which I don't think was an up-to-date or accurate portrayal of the effect of his Mormonism on his general election campaign. And I don't think we'll have a good analysis of that effect, if any, until the election is over. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what difference will the election being over make? HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Political scientists will study exit polls and other election data and analyze how much of a factor his religion was in the result. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll support removal. The concerns about copyvio and inaccuracy are completely unrelated to censorship. Moreover, I did a word search of this article for "Mormon" and came up with 41 hits; there would be plenty about Mormonism in this article without this passage.68.114.90.53 (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As a comparison, let's return to the JFK-Catholicism issue. That was 52 years ago, quite a bit of time for perspective and an issue as bothersome to a significant portion of the electorate at the time, if not more. The Romney article already has as much or more on his Mormonism as the JFK article has on Catholicism. The issue is quite adequately covered right now. If you want more information, read the newspapers. And HiLo, in response to your question "Exactly what difference will the election being over make?", the answer is we don't know until the election is over. That's the point. Cresix (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

However, I did realize that our article never stated that Romney is the first Mormon to win a major party presidential nomination. That's something definitely noteworthy, that a lot of press stories have mentioned, so I've added it to the campaign section. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Bishop

The lead says he was a "bishop" in his church. This is misleading, because the LDS concept of "bishop" differs significantly from the same word in other Christian denominations. It's no problem to say he was a "bishop" in the text of this article where there's room to briefly explain what that means, but it ought to be removed from the lead where it will just give a false impression.198.228.201.153 (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the lead says "bishop of his ward". Since bishops in other Christian denominations are in charge of things other than wards, this should clue the reader in that this bishop is different from other bishops they may know. And the link to the Bishop (Latter Day Saints) article will explain how. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider. Here's the full sentence in the lead: "Active in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, he served as bishop of his ward and later stake president in his home area near Boston." If you want to retain the word "bishop" instead of paraphrasing (which I would recommend), then at least insert "local" before "ward". Not only does the word "ward" have various definitions, but in this instance readers may have no clue about which is the technical term, "bishop" or "ward". As it happens, they both are. See Bishop (Latter Day Saints) and Ward (LDS Church). You are correct that readers might click on the wlink to the bishop article, and then click on the wlink from there to the ward article, but how many readers do you think do that, maybe one in a hundred million? If you read Wikipedia policy, such as WP:Manual of Style/Linking, you'll see that we're not supposed to make a reader chase links, and we're not supposed to force a reader to use a link to understand a sentence. That applies in the body of some trivial Wikipedia article, as well as the lead of a high-profile article. Kindly clarify this sentence, because now it suggests that he may have been high in the church hierarchy. Thanks.24.181.178.235 (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)(I began this talk page section.)

FLAYWIP, readers have to read in context. I believe that in every country, 'ward' always means a subdivision of a city or town, and usually a small subdivision intended for election purposes. Therefore 'local ward' would be redundant, and even if the meaning of an LDS ward is not known, the rough scope of Romney's bishop position would be accurately understood. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I started this section, and FYI my IP has changed. WTR, you're mistaken. First and foremost, a reader would have no way of knowing from the lead's context whether "bishop" has an unusual Mormon meaning, or instead "ward" has an unusual Mormon meaning. Inserting the word "local" would obviously clear that up. Moreover, the word "bishop" almost always has one single meaning: a high official in a church. In contrast, the word "ward" often means many different things, including a section of a prison or hospital, or a person for whom one is a guardian, et cetera. I am frankly surprised that you do not see the obvious impact that the word "bishop" is going to have, and that you view inserting the word "local" as redundant, and that you're unwilling to paraphrase in any way. As you know, many readers will not read past the lead, and any reader --- stupid or intelligent --- will have no idea whether "ward" or instead "bishop" is being used here in a technical sense. Many will assume that the word "ward" is a large division of the Mormon church, having a size that befits a bishop. If we were speaking about a governmental or geographic division, then the word "ward" signifies a small area, but the lead is not talking about a governmental or geographic unit.68.114.90.53 (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the issue of redundancy, I don't think adding the word "local" to "bishop of his ward" adds anything for the reader. If readers don't already understand the meaning of "bishop" in the LDS sense, and don't want to bother clicking the links to find out more, there is little (if any) more meaning conveyed by inserting the word "local". If the reader is ignorant of LDS, "ward" and "local ward" has the same meaning. I had no idea what "bishop" in the LDS church meant until I read more about it; "ward" and "local ward" would have made no difference in my understanding until I actually read the details. Cresix (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that most people are familiar with the notion of a bishop, it is typically in the Catholic context. I think that it's pretty well known that Romney is not Catholic, so that should be enough of a red flag to prevent people from assuming he's a bishop in that way. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No, a "bishop" is generally understood to be someone in various different Christian demoninations who is in the highest order of the ministry. Romney was not. Here's an excerpt from a piece by Peggy Fletcher Stack in The Salt Lake Tribune:

“ Romney, though well-regarded in his area, was never a "high-ranking religious official." In Mormon circles, that designation would more fittingly apply to general authorities — men who serve as so-called seventies, apostles or as members of the First Presidency. The LDS Church is run locally as an unpaid, lay clergy, so while Romney devoted countless hours to his assignment as Mormon bishop, he also ran Bain Capital at the time. He had no particular theological training nor did he preach on a regular basis. A Mormon bishop is essentially an administrator who oversees weekly worship services while advising and ministering to members of his congregation. ”

I don't see any need for technical terms in the lead, especially if they are not explained in the lead, or are likely to be misleading. Anyway, I started this talk page section (as 198.228.201.153), and I guess I'll bow out now and let this talk page section run its course (and the same for this article in general).71.255.172.80 (talk) 06:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not what that dictionary link said. First, it said that a bishop "supervises a number of local churches", and then went on to say that, under Roman Catholicism and two closely-related sects, "the highest order of the ministry". The first part mostly applies to Mormon bishops (depending on how you consider a ward and its branches), but the second does not. As for ordained clergy, Mormons have lay priesthood, which is yet another key distinction. Really, it's so different that it would be hard to confuse the two. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That linked definition refers to the "Greek, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and other churches" without even hinting that there may be sects that use the word differently.71.255.172.80 (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, this turns out not to be the case, in two ways. Trivially, the list of sects ends with "and other churches", most likely to account for such groups as the Old Catholics. More importantly, it is phrased so that the part about being the highest order is only applies to Catholic-related churches. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The dictionary in question says otherwise.71.255.172.80 (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're simply mistaken. I quoted relevant parts and explained. All you did was express disagreement. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing more to discuss here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Your narrow interpretation of "other churches" is unwarranted and incorrect. Some Protestant churches have bishops serving similar functions to Catholic bishops. Methodist Bishops give general oversight to the worldly and spiritual interests of the Church, and are responsible for seeing that regulations developed by their General Conference are carried out; Methodist bishops are also responsible for clergy appointments in the regional conferences they serve. Episcopal bishops are considered successors to the Apostles, commissioned in the name of Christ to ordain the clergy and confirm the laity.

No common dictionary definitions identify any churches that use the word "bishop" the way Mormons do. See also The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: "A high-ranking Christian cleric, in modern churches usually in charge of a diocese and in some churches regarded as having received the highest ordination in unbroken succession from the apostles." It's unfortunate for the lead of this article to confuse readers in this way, when it could be so easily fixed.71.255.172.80 (talk) 07:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)(I began this talk page section.)

I can understand why you'd be worried that a casual reader with no familiarity with Romney might confuse his LDS activity with being a Christian bishop, but I don't feel it's actually a problem. I'm not very familiar with the LDS church, so the phrase "bishop of his ward" seemed quite alien, and significantly different from the way Christian bishops are usually styled, e.g. "the Bishop of the Diocese of New York". Furthermore, the beginning of the sentence clearly implies that this bishop-ing is in a LDS context. While this is confusable with the more commonly used Christian sense, it is the term that the LDS uses, and as such, is the proper term for that role. The following term "stake president" would likely also clue a reader in that commonly used terms are being used in a LDS-specific manner. If this information is to remain in the lede, I don't think it needs to be changed. Whether or not it should be removed is a different argument entirely, and seems to be more for the discussion above this one. Jonathanfu (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

While it is factual that he was a "bishop" we should make sure that he is not given the honorific of "Bishop" as that would, indeed, be misleading. Further it is clear in many articles that some people do read the word as indicating a specific "rank" as a result of its unusual usage in the Mormon church. Thus it is proper for Wikipedia to use the clarifications used in reliable sources to indicate that it was a minor position, and not a profession for Romney. Sound about right? Collect (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

{Outdent} I have inserted into the lead a shortened version of the parenthetical that's already in the body of this article: "(i.e. head of his local congregation)." This also includes the word "local" from the wlinked article about bishops in the LDS church. (Note that I started this section as an IP. I strongly prefer to act at this article as an IP, but will reluctantly use my named account to edit this talk page and the article itself, because the lead editor insists upon further identification.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"RfC: Mention how Romney's wealth compares to past presidents?" closed

RfC: Mention how Romney's wealth compares to past presidents? has been closed as to remove/delete the information from the article. I reviewed the article and the article no longer contains the discussed material, so no action was required. Regards, — Moe ε 02:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So, the info was removed from the article before the RfC was closed? Why? Seems like improper procedure not? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a messed-up closing by Moe. My view is that we ought to have a concise statement that "Romney is among the wealthier candidates to seek the presidency." The wlink provides further context. Shall I go ahead and insert this into the article, with a footnote?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"Mitt Romney, one of the wealthiest candidates ever to seek the presidency" - WashPo, September 21, 2012. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I just inserted the info, though using a different ref.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Undone, per the RFC close. Arkon (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The RfC was never properly closed as the info was improperly removed before consensus was reached. Redoing. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you should speak with the closer. Ignoring the the RFC result, is also, and in my view, much more improper. Please revert. Arkon (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of undoing it myself. There are ways to appeal the RFC if you feel so strongly about it, but simply ignoring it isn't one of them. Hot Stop (Edits) 23:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The information was not in the article during the RfC so it was not improperly closed. Arzel (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

airplane windows incident

Romney Doesn’t Know Why Airplane Windows Won’t Open, Calls The Closed Window Policy ‘A Real Problem’

Should that be in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.167.127 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You know it is the political silly season when you can't even make a joke without being criticized. Arzel (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I thought he was serious. Blame the reporters for that one; when I read an article I don't go looking for sarcasm. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Affirmation of faith as a matter of routine per anti-Mormon sites

AFAICT "I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the church is true" is a routine affirmation of faith used before testimonies, similar to such affirmations of faith in other churches, and cited in anti-Mormon sites as being routine. We ought to so label it, as it is clear that it was not anything unusual, any more than a person reciting the Apostles Creed would be. [1] The church pushes people to say they "know" the church is "true". etc. [2] They were the exact wording of so many of those I had heard and shared myself while an active Mormon years before.:

"I bear you my testimony that I know the Book of Mormon is true (or the Word Of God), I know that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet of God (and that Gordon B. Hinckley is the true prophet of God today) and I know that the Church is the only true church on the face of the earth today,

In short - Romney used ritual wording as the prologue to his testimonies, shown as such by anti-Mormon sites, and we ought to specify that it is a form of affirmation of faith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Eustress has removed the whole sentence and I'm okay with that. I don't think that HuffPo story was necessarily the best assessment of Romney's religious belief levels. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Placement of ranger and dog information

The content about a ranger and about the dog is currently placed under the Business career section and under Management consulting. This content has nothing to do with those topics. As these sections are about a specific topic rather than a specific timeframe, it seems the info should be placed elsewhere. 72Dino (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is organized chronologically (with a couple of concurrency cases where activity overlap occurred), with the section headers corresponding to the most important things that took place during that period, but not necessarily the only things. For example, the "University, France mission, marriage, and children" section has content which doesn't fall under any of those specific items but does in that time period, and the same is true for the "1994 U.S. senatorial campaign", "2002 Winter Olympics", and "Activity between presidential campaigns" sections as well. And in this case, the wording used - "Two family incidents during this time ..." make it clear that these incidents were not connected to his business activities. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

47%

How come there is not even a mention on the controversial statement captured on tape about the 47%? Cwobeel (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that more within the scope of the article on the campaign? alanyst 16:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Because it is already covered more appropriately at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 than at this BLP. 72Dino (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:SUMMARY we ought to include salient items from the Presidential campaign, and this is one of the most salient ones. I will summarize ina short sentence. Cwobeel (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cwobeel. Topical articles are being used here as a way to remove contentious material from Mitt Romney. How can this article be comprehsive without covering the most important aspects of the 2012 election cycle? Why not start an article Romney and the Olympics, so all the flattering material about how great he was there could also be removed. There is already an article on his business career, yet we still go into some detail here about Bain. Though, I suspect that any negative material about Bain wold go to the topical article. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc, if you're suggesting that any negative material has been moved to the topical article about his business career, that is 100% incorrect. Since that topical article was created, not one word about his business career has been removed from the present article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well thats good news, thanks for the clarification. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

My preference has been to wait until we know which factors during the general election campaign were major factors in causing the outcome. Was it Clint and the empty chair and little bounce out of the convention? The Libya statement? 47%? Mitt's failure to connect with everyday people? Dissention within the campaign? Media bias? Failure to 'vet' Obama? I've seen all these theories. I tend to agree that 47% is probably the most damaging of all of these, and some I think are a big zero, but what objective metric actually tells us? Nate Silver is exploring some of this, but nothing conclusive yet. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it remains to be seen—debate Wednesday will be telling. [3] Over 80% of Americans believe that everyone should pay at least a little in income tax. So pointing out that 47% do not may not hurt the Romney bid as much as left-leaning media would have everyone believe. I'm sure it will come up in the debate, both from Obama and from Romney. Will it hurt or help in the final vote count in November? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It will surely be a topic on the debate, so we can wait till then before adding. Nate Sliver piece about the impact of these comments is here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/sept-27-the-impact-of-the-47-percent/ Cwobeel (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite interesting in that it was not mentioned once in the debate on the economy, much to the dismay of Chris Matthews. Arzel (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

To the surprise of everyone, Romney debate preppers included I'm sure. In any case, there's enough time passed now to see that 47% has been a major event in the campaign, so I've added it to the campaign section. I've also added the first debate to the section. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I question just how much of the campaign it has become given everything else that has happened. I did remove one sentence that was pure opinion about the magnitude of the impact. Arzel (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You also removed Romney's own statements in reaction, which I think was accidental. One editor restore one of them, I've restored the other. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was accidental. Thanks. Arzel (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Governorship: Source of financial figures

Same problem as noted at Talk:Governorship of Mitt Romney: some of the state financial figures are sourced from a self-published source, DWS Investments. Use of an official government source, or, failing that, a neutral independent source, would be preferable. Dezastru (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Mormon/Romney Attack Book

I removed a book listing that is questionable at best. The book is little more than a vehicle to attack Mormonism and Romney. Regardless of what you think about any Mormon's, this kind of religous hatred has no place in his personal BLP. Furthermore it is not listed (from what I could see) on Amazon. Arzel (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The "Bibliography" section, where it was added and correctly reverted, only contains books that are used as sources within the article, which this one obviously isn't. The "Further reading" section contains other books, and is where this would go if it was worthy ... which it isn't. It's published by some no-name garage outfit and their blurb for it states that "[The author] reveals that Mormonism, Mitt Romney's tradition, is not actually a religion but a synthetic ideology sponsored by British intelligence, as part of their campaign of covert warfare against the United States." 'Nuff said. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Congregation or parish?

Which is most common/accurate for Mormons, "head of his local congregation" or "head of his local parish"? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the Mormon term is "Stake" consisting of multiple "Wards" - IIRC, Romney is described as a ward bishop? Collect (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "parish" is not used in the LDS Church. "Congregation" is more generic and not related to a particular religion. Also, I understand Romney was both a ward bishop and a stake president, two different responsibilities at different times. 72Dino (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"Half true"

Collect, regarding this change that you just made, I am okay with removing the word "scheme", but disagree on this rest. We don't need in-text attribution of Politifact, nor do we need to use their somewhat oxymoronic "Half true" label. That's lame. And how is the reader supposed to understand what "half true" means here? What we should do instead is paraphrase what Politifact concluded. They say: "Romney was head of Marriott’s audit committee at the time. Experts disagree on whether the corporate board would have known about the deal and had the chance to question it. The company neither confirmed nor denied that the board approved the transaction. At some point, the board would have approved filings that included the fraudulent losses, but it’s unclear whether Romney specifically favored the tax move." That's what this Note was trying to say: "... during Romney's time as chair, Marriott implemented the Son of BOSS tax shelter scheme [description of losses and federal courts action]. It is not clear whether Romney specifically approved the use of the scheme at the time." Why is this not an accurate paraphrase? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope - Politifact is used as the reliable source and so its statement properly belongs in the text. And they used the term specifically "Half True. It is intellectually dishonest to elide what the source states in black and white. Collect (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect, that's a bit of an untenable stance. It's like saying anytime we use a newspaper story as a source, we have to quote the story title or story lead sentence or the story final conclusion verbatim in the article. We don't do that, of course; we paraphrase whatever part of the newspaper story is relevant to what our text is using. There is nothing special about Politifact or the other fact checkers as sources, and many FA/GA-level articles paraphrase the fact checkers' findings rather than restating their "Pinocchios" or "Pants on Fire" conclusions. Furthermore, "Half true" is hardly the black-and-white conclusion you seem to think it is! Wasted Time R (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Yo object to using the exact language of a source because you don't like it? Sorry - I did not find that as a reason not to use a quote in any Wikipedia policy at all. If we use a source, we use what is in the source, not just what we want to find in the source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no disagreement on substance here - the article's old text that I quoted above is the same as Politifact's "Half true". (Unless you see a difference that I don't, in which case please point it out.) I'm simply objecting to the style of introducing Politifact's ratings, which are intended for campaign silly season, into a biographical narrative that has nothing to do with a campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is the implied nature. In it's most simple interpretation. "Marriott did something implicitly bad when Romney was chair. We don't know if Romney had anything to do with this....but we are just saying.  ;)" This is how it reads. Arzel (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Marriott did something explicitly bad (i.e. ruled illegal) when Romney was chair. Yes, we don't don't know if he approved it, or knew about it, or should have known about it (in the pre-Enron era, plenty of boards were sleepy). But saying "half true" is worse than saying what is known and what is not known. Also note that I've pushed this into a Note now, which I think is more appropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think it was ruled illegal until sometime after. It seems a little revisionist to say something is illegal today and then go back to the past when it wasn't illegal and make an issue out of it as if it were. There are all kinds of things that are "illegal" today that were not when I was younger, I bet Romney drove "illegally" when he was younger by not using a seatbelt or a child seat for their kids. I realize this is off on a little bit of a tangent, it just bothers me in general when events of the past are judged through the prism of today which is what this appears to be. Arzel (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't revert solely due to "no consensus"

This revert is problematic. See WP:Don't revert solely due to "no consensus". Please provide reasons. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Dezastru, as you have no doubt seen, the article has been gone over top to bottom as part of an ongoing FAC. While the vast majority of changes have been stylistic, some content changes have occurred as well, and both kinds of changes have affected 'previously agreed upon' portions of text. Anythingyouwant's changes in the Political positions took place in this FAC context. Rather than treat them as a whole, you should explain case by case what you object to, and then they can be talked out here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I had not been closely following the back-and-forth in the FAC discussion, so I was surprised to see changes appearing that affected the meaning, rather than just the style, of some parts of this section. Dezastru (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are my views on the additions in question:

Position on judicial nominations

Adding "More generally, he supports judges 'who know the difference between personal opinion and law.'" This is a pretty vacuous strawman argument on the part of Romney. I don't think it needs to be here in the summary section.Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is Dezastru's edit: "More generally, he supports judges 'who know the difference between personal opinion and law.'"

This stricken material is clearly supported by the source, and it is very brief. It is critical here for several reasons. First, it is a general statement about judicial philosophy, rather than being confined to one particular issue, and so it is fitting for this main article about Romney. Second, this purportedly "vacuous" argument is the central thesis of conservatives regarding the judiciary and judicial nominations; it is implicitly an accusation that liberals/progressives have appointed judges who excessively insert their own personal opinions into the judicial process. Whether we believe this accusation to be true or false is beside the point; if true it would be a very notable abuse of judicial power, and surely it is notable that Romney believes that it is true. The third reason why this is critical is because it suggests that Romney does not have any litmus test that nominees must share any particular personal opinions in order to merit an appointment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Since there's no judge alive who claims to rule based upon personal opinion rather than the law, and since judges of all ideological stripes have been accused of judicial activism, it would be better to identify which of the models of judicial interpretation that judges do admit to - Judicial minimalism, Judicial restraint, Living Constitution, Original intent, Original meaning, Strict constructionism, etc. - Romney thinks best and would make appointments based upon. Wasted Time R (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Romney has not explicitly used one of those labels to describe his judicial philosophy. Instead, his web site uses plain language that indicates that he is an advocate of textualism and "restrained judges". Per USA Today: "Romney says his judicial appointees 'will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written.'" So he is a textualist. See Catalina Camia Who would Romney appoint to Supreme Court?, USA Today (October 1, 2012).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Wasted has summed up my disagreement with inclusion of the statement very well. There is no president and certainly no judge or justice who would disagree that all judges must know the difference between personal opinion and law. Anythingyouwant writes that "it is implicitly an accusation that liberals/progressives have appointed judges who excessively insert their own personal opinions into the judicial process"; yet this Wikipedia article is intended for a very wide audience, including many readers who would have no understanding of that implicit meaning.

As an alternative, I would agree with a statement indicating that Romney has said he would appoint justices with a strict constructionist philosophy (with a wikilink to strict constructionism), as such as statement would be informative for all readers and would make a meaningful distinction between the position Romney holds on judicial appointments and the positions held by other prominent American politicians. (The topic was discussed, for example, at a Fox News presidential candidate forum beginning roughly @07:34.)

The label "strict constructionist" perfectly illustrates the danger of using labels that mean different things to different people. In the video that Dezastru points to, Romney says that Scalia is a "strict constructionist", but Scalia himself says otherwise. Scalia says he is "not a strict constructionist and no-one ought to be," and has called the philosophy "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute." Scalia says, "[a] text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means." In the video that Dezastru points to, Romney explains in ordinary language (without ambiguous labels) that he wants judges who "follow the Constitution as written and intended, and follow the laws of Congress as written and intended, rather than having the Supreme Court see its role as springing from or departing from the Constitution and laws to put in place their own views." I do not see the problem with simply saying that "Romney promises to appoint judges who interpret the Constitution and laws as written and intended." Consider judges who say the death penalty is unconstitutional in all cases; I don't think any of those judges have ever asserted that that position is contained in the Constitution as written and intended (the Constitution repeatedly discusses capital crimes, deprivation of life, et cetera).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not our job to parse Romney's language. If Scalia objects to being called a strict constructionist, then that should go in the Scalia article or the strict constructionism article. It's not appropriate for this article, given the space limits. That's why we have Wikilinks. The problem with including Romney's saying judges should "follow the Constitution as written and intended, and follow the laws of Congress as written and intended, rather than having the Supreme Court see its role as springing from or departing from the Constitution and laws to put in place their own views" in this article is that that statement, like the earlier one, does not help distinguish Romney's position from those of other politicians and jurists. Almost everyone agrees that judges should follow the Constitution and the laws as written and intended. The strict contructionist designation offers a more nuanced yet succinct description, whether valid or not, of his judicial philosophy. Dezastru (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "strict constructionist" is technical legal mumbo jumbo that different judges and lawyers interpret in different ways, and so it is not the best way to describe Romney's position here. Even if you are correct that "almost everyone agrees" with the statement by Romney that judges should comply with the letter and intent of the law (and I believe you are incorrect given, e.g., the stance taken by judges who deny the death penalty's constitutionality), still this statement by Romney indicates his emphasis. Certainly President Obama's emphasis is different; Obama is not going around saying that he wants judges who will interpret laws in conformity with what the framers understood those laws to mean.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

None of these quotes from Romney explicitly talks about framers either (and even originalists disagree about which framers 'count'). Another alternative would be to use one of Romney's statements about which current justices he likes and would appoint like minds of. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The language that I'm suggesting is this: ""Romney emphasizes that he would appoint judges who interpret the Constitution and laws as written and intended, and says he would appoint judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito.” I don't think it would be useful to say stuff about judicial restraint or strict constructionism (both of which Romney has explicitly favored) because then we'd have to give some brief description of what those terms mean, and they mean different things to different people. Merely including a wikilink to judicial restraint would be inadequate; per WP:Link, "use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence...." Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Wasted and Anythingyouwant that listing specific examples of the kinds of judges he would appoint is helpful. Disagree that saying he would appoint judges who interpret the Constitution and laws as written and intended is helpful or appropriate. I've changed that language and added "strict constructionist" judges. Incidentally, this sentence is sandwiched in a paragraph discussing abortion, but it really applies much more broadly in terms of his position on judicial appointments, so I've moved it to a separate paragraph. (It needn't remain in its own whole paragraph, but it should not be placed within the material on abortion while it also applies to his position on same-sex marriage constitutionality, civil liberties vs. war-time defense rulings, etc.) If Romney says he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges, the statement is de facto evidence of his emphasis. The combination of a Wikilink to strict constructionism and the inclusion of his particular examples of what kinds of judges he has in mind should overcome concerns about WP:Link, particularly since "strict constructionist" is a term in common usage among laypersons, not just technical legal mumbo jumbo. Dezastru (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the judicial nomination material up a little so it is juxtaposed with the already-existing material about the kind of judges he would appoint. Also, a one-sentence paragraph is something to generally avoid; I added a sentence. The paragraph now says: "He has said that he would appoint federal judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito.[353][354] Romney favors restrained judges and has advocated strict constructionism.[355][354]" I believe that using these labels, without giving readers some idea of their various meanings (or at least what they mean to Romney), is contrary to the Wikipedia policy that I quoted above, and I don't like it, but it would be preferable to avoid an edit war. No one has disputed that Romney emphasizes that he would appoint judges who interpret the Constitution and laws as written and intended, and no one has contended that President Obama is emphasizing the same thing. I am emphatically against this article saying that Romney calls Scalia a strict constructionist, because that is the single most confusing thing that Romney has ever said about judicial nominations (given that Scalia denies being a strict constructionist).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "strict constructionist" is used in common parlance. I do not think "restrained judge" is. The introduction of that latter term does start to risk violating WP:Link. The phrasing I suggested was "He has said that he would appoint [[strict constructionism|strict constructionist]] federal judges in the mold of Chief Justice [[John Roberts|John Roberts]], and Associate Justices [[Clarence Thomas|Clarence Thomas]], [[Antonin Scalia|Antonin Scalia]], and [[Samuel Alito|Samuel Alito]]." If your complaint is that Scalia vehemently opposes being characterized as a strict constructionist, his name can be removed: "He has said that he would appoint [[strict constructionism|strict constructionist]] federal judges in the mold of Chief Justice [[John Roberts|John Roberts]], and Associate Justices [[Clarence Thomas|Clarence Thomas]] and [[Samuel Alito|Samuel Alito]]." Romney's meaning is quite clear from that statement; the inclusion of Scalia's name is not necessary. (Also, I also can't see anything at the link that was included for mittromney.com on the courts and judicial appointments page -- not sure whether this is a quirk of my browser or computer. I can see the content from google's cache, but not through the direct link.) Dezastru (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You've asked to omit a plain-language description of the criteria Romney emphasizes for judicial nominees, and I have acquiesced to that. WTR has asked to insert the names of judges who would be models for Romney's nominees, and I have acquiesced to that. You have asked to insert Romney's self-characterization as a "strict constructionist" and I have acquiesced to that too, even though it appears that he was using that term in an idiosyncratic way different from the way judges like Scalia use the term. What I strongly oppose and will not acquiesce to is us using Romney's idiosyncratic use of this term to label judges (Scalia or anyone else) as "strict constructionist", when that is not necessary in order to convey clear information to the reader, and in fact will likely be confusing to the reader.

The link to mittromney.com works fine for me; that's where he says that he supports "restrained judges who will take seriously their oath to discharge their duties impartially...." The google cache is here. Also see O’Neill, Tyler. “Obamacare Ruling Energizes Pro-Life Movement”, Fox News (July 3, 2012): “he would ‘nominate judges who respect the Constitution, are proponents of judicial restraint and know the difference between personal opinion and the law.’” If we can have an obscure and idiosyncratic reference to strict constructionism in this Wikipedia article, that at least ought to be balanced by Romney's embrace of judicial restraint.

This article is in the middle of a FAC review, so I hope there will be some flexibility on both sides, in order to get this resolved. But if not, then so be it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The mittromney.com cite isn't necessary, and I've removed it, as the USA Today piece and Huckabee appearance both name the four justices, the latter also talks about strict constructionism, and the Fox News piece talks about judicial restraint. I think the ordering that's in the text now (four names first, Mitt's judicial philosophies second) avoids any potential conflict about what Scalia self-identifies as. I did condense the description of the justices - it wasn't clear from the existing text what court they were on, and I don't think Roberts being chief is significant in this context. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I do think this is visually choppy though - there are three two-sentence paragraphs in a row, all on related topics. There must be some way of rearranging this into two paragraphs, I would think. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It could be made less choppy by explaining in the second paragraph what Romney means by "judicial restraint" and by "strict constructionism". Would you like me to provide sources about that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No, less is more in this section. I'm still okay with just going with the list of justices he likes - that pretty much says it all. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Except that the previous paragraph makes it sound like he has a results-oriented policy litmus test, which is the exact opposite of what he believes the judicial process is all about.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, less is more. Agree with Wasted that just listing the names of the justices may be the best option. Dezastru (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Position that FMA would help children

Note that 'FMA' means Federal_Marriage_Amendment FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding ", which he believes would benefit children" to his position in favor of the FMA. I think this is marginal - it supplies some of his reasoning, but could also be left to the subarticle.Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it is marginal. It is a very short and concise statement that indicates Romney views this as more than involving the rights of adults. Without this addition, one would misunderstand his position as merely opposing rights. Whether Romney is correct or not is irrelevant to whether we should briefly give an accurate characterization of his opinion. This stricken phrase is clearly supported by the cited source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Romney's positions on government recognition of same-sex relationships are complex. The text of the pledge itself makes no mention of his reasons for vowing to support the constitutional amendment, apart from implying that it was not the intent of the Founders that same-sex couples had a right to marriage that the Constitution would protect. He has at other times said that a reason for his opposition to same-sex marriage is that he wants to guarantee the best opportunity for the successful rearing of children, but that does not mean that it is the sole reason for his opposition or that absent that consideration he would support same-sex marriage.

Also, note that the first line of the paragraph does not say merely that he opposes same-sex marriage, but that he also opposes (same-sex) civil unions. Does he oppose civil unions because gay couples form civil unions to rear children and he wants to keep that from happening, in order to protect the interests of children? He has said that "it's fine" that same-sex couples adopt children, and he has said that the couples are entitled to that right; at other points he has disclaimed support for same-sex couples' adoption.

Leave discussion for his reasons of pledging to support the amendment, and the nuances of his positions on LGBT issues, to the political positions subarticle, where there is the room to cover such material appropriately. Dezastru (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

He has repeatedly said that the FMA would help children, and has never said anything to the contrary, so briefly saying so in this Wikipedia article would be totally harmless. This has nothing to do with the Founders, because the FMA would amend what the founders wrote. By the way, here's Romney's sentence that Dezastru refers to: "I know many gay couples that are able to adopt children. That’s fine. But my preference is that we ... continue to define marriage as the relationship between a man and a woman." And the latter position is because of his belief that doing so would benefit children; he's said so many times.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I would have no objection if you wanted to elaborate on his position on a constitutional same-sex marriage ban, including what he has said about the importance of having a married father and mother for the rearing of children, in the subarticle, where there is more room to go into the nuances. The main article does not allow that degree of detail. Romney has said, at various times, that he would not seek legal measures to prevent same-sex couples from adopting children. He has said that it was the right of those couples to adopt. (At other points he has taken an alternate position.) With that background, it would be misleading to say or imply that Romney has pledged to seek a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage BECAUSE he wants to ensure kids grow up with a mom and a dad at home, without providing more information about the various positions he has taken. Dezastru (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the amendment itself says nothing about children or any other rationale; it's a blanket prohibition, and that's what Romney is supporting. I think Dezastru is right here - we should state his support for the amendment and leave everything else, including the juxtaposition of his rationale with his other positions around the subject, for the subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Position on Ryan budget

Adding "several aspect" modifier to his embrace of the Ryan budget. This sentence has always been trouble here, and another editor is questioning it at the FAC. I don't have any good answers here (my own preference would be to leave the Ryan budget out completely, but I doubt I'll get much agreement on that).Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have a position one way or the other about whether the Ryan budget should be left out completely. But if it's included, then it ought to be done in a way that is NPOV. Currently, the article says: "He embraced the Paul Ryan Budget.[360][361]". This is obviously and blatantly incorrect, inasmuch as the second cited source from Politico (361) is titled: "Mitt Romney hugs Paul Ryan, but not budget". Therefore, I support either removing reference to the Ryan Budget, or alternatively modifying the sentence to read "He embraced several aspects of the Paul Ryan Budget.[360][361]".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we are on the same page on this, Anythingyouwant. Based on the discussion of this topic at Talk Archive 18, I changed "He embraced the Paul Ryan budget" to "He has also strongly supported the directions of the federal budget proposed by Paul Ryan in March 2012. Naapple slapped that down, and no one has since made any further modifications of the text until your recent change to "aspects of." The problem with "aspects of" is that it overdilutes Romney's early support for the Ryan plan. One could reasonably read "aspects of" to mean, say, two points out of a 30-point plan (number of points made up for sake of argument). "Supported the directions of" indicates that his support was for the the plan as a whole, on balance. Dezastru (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Supported the directions of" is a somewhat awkward construction. The Politico source says: "After Romney’s speech introducing Ryan, advisers said the former Massachusetts governor has no intention of being handcuffed to all the specifics of Ryan’s plans — though he has said in the past that he’d sign Ryan’s budget if passed by Congress. 'He has said it moves us in the right direction. He has said that if it’s sent to him, he would sign it. And he has said that he will put forward his own plan,' said one senior Romney adviser." So we could say that Romney views Ryan's plans as being steps in the right direction, without committing to all of Ryan's specifics. The text in the Wikipedia article right now is blatantly wrong.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Position on fate of auto industry

Expanded description of his position on auto bailouts/managed bankruptcy. I've already modified AYW's original language on this, and I can live with the new text. This is another issue/position that's hard to describe succinctly.Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the version prior to Dezastru's edit: "During the U.S. automotive industry crisis of 2008–2010, he opposed a bailout of the industry in the form of direct government intervention, and argued instead that a managed bankruptcy of struggling automobile companies should be accompanied by federal guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing."

Here's the version after Dezastru's edit: "During the U.S. automotive industry crisis of 2008–2010, he opposed a bailout of the industry in the form of direct government intervention, and argued instead that struggling automobile companies should be should be restructured through managed bankruptcy."

I can live with the first version (as WTR says he can), but the second version leaves out a key ingredient: Romney supported federal guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing. The second version also inexplicably omits the wlink to the GM Chapter 11. The second version also presents a false dichotomy between bailout and bankruptcy, when actually both occurred.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would accept the following: "During the automotive industry crisis of 2008–2010, he opposed a bailout of the industry in the form of direct government loans, and argued instead that struggling automobile companies should be restructured through managed bankruptcy then seek private-sector loans backed by government loan guarantees." The Wikilink in the previous text linked "managed bankruptcy" to the GM bankruptcy proceedings article inappropriately. The sentence had said that Romney argued for managed bankruptcy. It did not mean by that that Romney was arguing for the managed bankruptcy that GM underwent, which included direct government loans and the US government taking an ownership stake in the corporation (both of which Romney opposed). The link also directed only to GM, not to Chrysler, yet Chrysler also benefited from direct government intervention. Readers who are interested in more information on the specific bankruptcies that occurred can find that information at the article that is linked from "U.S. automotive industry crisis of 2008-2010." Dezastru (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you were going to comment about this item. You disagree with the version that I and WTR agreed on. As far as I can tell, you have not explained what's wrong with the version that WTR and I agree upon, except that you don't agree with the wikilink. Regarding the wikilink, I would reluctantly agree to removing it (and have done so), but please reconsider in view of the fact that the Chrysler bankruptcy is a "see also" in the wikilinked article about the GM bankruptcy. Also, I have moved the word "instead" to a better position, so the sentence says "should instead be accompanied by federal guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Romney argued that the auto companies should seek private-sector loans at a time that the private sector was not making any loans, and especially not to auto companies. That was the crux of the financial crisis! The auto companies asked for bailout loans from the government (LOANS, mind you, not cash with no strings attached) because they said that they couldn't find financing in the private sector.[4] The version you are arguing for leaves out any mention of the central role private-sector financing would have played if the plan Romney proposed was to have been successful. Dezastru (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have further edited the article to address your concern. It now says: "During the U.S. automotive industry crisis of 2008–2010, he opposed a bailout of the industry in the form of direct government intervention, and argued that a managed bankruptcy of struggling automobile companies should instead be accompanied by federal guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing from the private sector." I think it was pretty clear before, but now it's extremely clear. The banks had plenty of money, and Romney felt that federal guarantees would induce them to loan it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Position on tax reform

Rephrasing of the first sentence of the tax law changes paragraph. I think either version is okay, but I'd stay away from the word "reform" - one person's reform is another person's bad idea.Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Dezastru changed "Stating that they would lower federal deficits and stimulate economic growth, Romney plans to enact income tax law changes" to "He has also said that, if elected president, he will seek income tax law reforms that he says would help to lower federal deficits and would stimulate economic growth". The two sentences sound pretty much equivalent to me, and I have not objected to either one. I don't know why Dezastru changed it, but the change is fine with me, although WTR does have a good point about the word "reform", and the "if elected" part does sound a little crystal bally.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The previous wording was "Stating that they would lower federal deficits and stimulate economic growth, Romney plans to enact income tax law changes." Along the same lines as "presidents can't repeal anything on their own", presidents can't enact any laws on their own. Hence, the change from "plans to enact" to "will seek." To say that "if elected" is crystalbally is an overreading of that policy (and why is there no objection on that grounds to the same construction in the preceding paragraph?).

In terms of style, starting the sentence with "stating that they would lower federal deficits and stimulate economic growth," just sounds more clumsy. I have no objection to "changes" as opposed to "reforms," although I think that's a trivial distinction. Dezastru (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In the preceding paragraph, WTR may wish to do this: "Romney says that if elected president, he would lead an effort to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")...." I would have no objection.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Position on jailing Al Qaeda members

"suspect terrorists" versus "Al Qaeda members" - I'd find a different source where Romney is giving his position on suspected terrorists in general. As a practical matter, al Qaeda isn't even well-defined any more, so the general language would be preferable. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article currently says: "Romney supports … indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without trial[378]...." But that is not supported by the cited source, which is why (pending citation of some other new source) we should change "suspected terrorists" to "Al Qaeda members". The cited source is Palazzolo, Joe (January 17, 2012). "Romney booed for support of indefinite detention". The Wall Street Journal. The source does say that Romney would have signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which President Obama signed, and that NDAA provides for indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. However, the source does not say that Romney agreed with everything in NDAA, and says that Obama did not. The source says Romney's remarks were directed at Al Qaeda members rather than at terrorists generally, or at "suspected" Al Qaeda members.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The exchange that the WSJ piece was referring was as follows (emphasis added):

Moderator: Governor Romney, when President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, he enacted a provision allowing him to indefinitely detain American citizens in U.S. military custody, many, including Congressman Paul, have called it unconstitutional. At the same time the bill did provide money to continue funding U.S. troops. Governor Romney, as president, would you have signed the National Defense Act as written?

Romney: Yes, I would have. And I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda. Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues but you don’t have a right to join a group that is killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail.... But let me tell you, people who join al Qaeda are not entitled to rights of due process under our normal legal code. They are entitled instead to be treated as enemy combatants.

//I agree that Romney's response frames the debate specifically in terms of his concern about al Qaeda. The problem is that he is also saying that he would have signed the act "as written", with its blanket inclusion of all persons suspected of terrorism. It would be fair to mention al Qaeda in the Wikipedia article text, but it would need to be in a way that shows that the law that Romney said he would sign as written made no such distinction between al Qaeda and other suspected terrorists. (Note also that the WSJ piece mentioned that Obama signed it with reservations.)

I've looked for other statements Romney has made on the record concerning indefinite detention and have come up empty-handed, except for at a town-hall discussion. The media have pretty much ignored this issue. Given that, I would not object to removing this item completely. Dezastru (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits to article

I've gone ahead and edited the article to reflect consensus in this discussion. I did not yet edit the FMA stuff, or the judicial nomination stuff, and I hope that people will give further feedback about it. My understanding is that no one has objected to saying that ""Romney emphasizes that he would appoint judges who interpret the Constitution and laws as written and intended, and says he would appoint judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito." Please correct me if I'm wrong.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Image placement

The images were recently shuffled around. Per MOS:Images:

"Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar."

"It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text."

Also, images should not force a heading to be indented. Additionally, I think the article is okay in chronological form, instead of segregating out the personal info. So, I'll revert.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that the images have been shuffled again. I disagree with that for the reasons stated above. Additionally, co-aligning images is a very normal and appropriate thing to do; see Wikipedia:STACKING#Co-aligning. The image shuffling also removed the names of children from the infobox; I don't see any privacy purposes that are served by doing that, if the names of the children are still used later in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring reverts

I've reverted these good faith restructural edits, since they are major modifications and should be discussed first, especially since this is a high visibility article that is also currently at FAC. —Eustress ^talk 16:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that revert.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Children in infobox

Alrighty now I had recently changed details in the infobox where his 5 sons were named (with birthdates) and I removed the names and replaced them with just the number of kids Romney has (5) as it follows template:infobox person guidelines about only listing notable people in the infobox. none of his sons are therefore only '5' should be in its place. but a fellow editor wanted a concensus before it's changed so alls I want is who is opposed to the change and who supports the change. if you oppose it, i'd like to know your argument on it. thank you :) Lady Lotus (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Opposed. The infobox guideline says, "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable." In this situation, the kids are named later in the article, so really it doesn't protect their privacy to keep them out of the infobox. By the way, if consensus is to put a number in the infobox instead, I think it should be spelled out "five" instead of just the digit "5". Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Opposed. I understand where Lady Lotus is coming from on this, but Template:Infobox person's rationale seems mostly based upon privacy concerns: "Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names, ... For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable." Privacy isn't really an issue here. All are over 30 years old (and their birth dates aren't listed in the article or infobox, just birth years). All have publicly campaigned for their father both in 2007-2008 (the five rented an RV and drove around Iowa on what they called the "Mitt Mobile", see this story from the time for example) and in 2011-2012. Tagg in particular is credited with playing a large role in the current campaign, see for instance this Politico story from yesterday that attributes a change in campaign direction to him and Ann. In terms of existing practice for prominent American politicians, looking at those who have FA or GA articles, John McCain lists all the children in the infobox, even though only one has an article, and Al Gore lists all, even though only some have an article; the same is true of Joe Biden and Ron Paul and Scott Brown. To match this case exactly, Jon Huntsman, Jr. and Jon Corzine list all, even though none has an article. The only example (non-GA) I ran across that gives just a number of children in the infobox was Joe Lieberman. So I think on balance, listing out the children in this article's infobox is appropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm thinking the word "notable" in the guideline is a problem. Since there's a policy on "notability," the word "notable" is often taken by Wikipedians to mean "passing the bar of notability for article inclusion." However, it's not unreasonable to believe the guideline might simply mean notable in the plain old dictionary sense. This might be something to pursue at the guideline page for clarification. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your comment 100%. It is often used as an argument against the removal of something very un-notable. Arzel (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Giving the examples of McCain, Gore and a bunch of other politicians isn't a strong point because it could easily be argued that their infoboxes need to be fixed to omit any non-notable children from it. And yes, it's the word "notable" that is the key point I'm trying to get across. I don't care about privacy concerns because most children even if they are infants are listed on an article page, but none are listed in an infobox unless they have their own article. Infoboxes are supposed to just summarize the person, not give all details. It's been discussed a couple different places and both times it was said to only list the notable children in the infobox and not all of them. WP: Help desk/Archives/2010 March 15/Existing summary boxes in articles and Template talk:Infobox person/Why mention the name of the parents and spouses but not the children Lady Lotus (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with removal. Too much infobox clutter as is. All children need not be named there. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I see my argument is sufficient and am going to remove children and replace with number. Lady Lotus (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

I changed it from "5; Taggart" to "Taggart and four others". Here's my edit summary: "If only one of the five kids is listed in infobox, then this is a simpler format. I'm inclined to list all five, but it's not worth fighting about. There's no consensus at talk page to list only one, but whatever.".Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Abortion

Romney is a cock.

Romney's remarks this week regarding abortion legislation add yet another level of complexity to his public positions on abortion law. Discussion of the new remarks should be moved to the Political positions of Mitt Romney article, where there is more space for detail.

He has consistently said over the past several years that he would be a pro-life president and would appoint pro-life judges, with a goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, a position he has not changed with his new comments. Yesterday it was reported that when asked "Is there any legislation that you plan to actively pursue in regards to women’s issues?" and "Do you intend to pursue any legislation specifically regarding abortion?", he said, "There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda. One thing I would change, however, which would be done by executive order, not by legislation, is that I would reinstate the Mexico City policy, which is that foreign aid dollars from the United States would not be used to carry out abortion in other countries. It’s long been our practice here that taxpayer dollars are not to be used to fund abortion in this country. President Obama on the 10th day of his administration changed the Mexico City policy to say that abortion services were not prohibited in our foreign aid dollars. I would go back to the original so-called Mexico City policy.”

During the early months of the primary campaign last year, he wrote an op-ed article in which he said, "I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion."

It is misleading to include his comment from yesterday about there being no legislation that he is familiar with that would become part of his agenda without mentioning the position he took in the op-ed piece. Also, the statement "he has said that as president, legislation related to abortion will not be on his agenda," which is a line in the current version of the WP article, is not quite the same as what he said this week. Rather than paraphrasing or rephrasing what he said, it would be best to simply state exactly what he said. Dezastru (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a case where what they say about primary sources comes into play. Most likely he is neutral or mildly pro-choice and had to say he's pro-life to get nominated. Through that lens it all makes sense. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

However, what one person believes in good-faith is "most likely" is POV original-research conjecture, so I'm not sure that the personal belief stated above can be a factor in this discussion. It also, I believe inadvertently, says the candidate's public statements are deliberately misleading. Whatever one's politics, it's slippery ground to say a candidate is lying. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wp:ver applies to the article space, not the talk page. My comment was just to help makes sense out of the situation. Also to point out that we should not be trying to derive things from primary sources. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dezastru that this most recent "There’s no legislation with regards to ..." statement should not be included here. Within hours of making it, Romney's camp was already walking it back, see here, and pro-life groups supporting Romney were already dismissing it as unimportant, see here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the most current statement by the candidate on a major issue. It should be put in there, attributed. I.E. not "his position is...." but "he said....." [11:23, October 11, 2012‎ North8000]

The most current statements by the candidate and his spokesperson on the issue are that (Columbus Dispatch) he wants the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade and return abortion legality decisions within the US to the individual states. He would prefer having a Constitutional amendment ban abortions outright but he recognizes that the country would not support such an amendment. He does plan to issue an executive order that would keep foreign organizations that receive U.S. aid from performing or promoting abortion in foreign countries. And he will prohibit federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Also (LA Times) "Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life, and he will be a pro-life president.... Gov. Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life." Is there enough space in the article for all of that? Of course there isn't. So what should be included; what is essential? Dezastru (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the point in not including the three different positions he's apparently taken on abortion. It gives readers a much more well-rounded view of his position, while only using up a couple of extra sentences, and hardly over-loading the article or content forking. It just makes it a better resource - the majority of readers don't read the political positions article, so a little duplication is fine if it's concise. Avaya1 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Echo chamber

The "Political positions" section has become a sort of echo chamber to repeat position changes of many years ago that were already described in previous sections of this Wikipedia article.  Accordingly, I have tweaked the header level so that the "Political positions" section is now a subsection of the 2012 election section.  If someone wants to go through the "Political positions" subsection and weed out stuff that's already been covered in previous sections of this Wikipedia article, that would be great.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing Political Positions from being a top-level section to being a subsection of the 2012 presidential campaign section is not necessary, and is not consistent with standard WP practice for articles on prominent U.S. politicians.

There is a subarticle that covers Romney's political positions in more detail, so the change from top-level section to subsection in the main article probably shouldn't warrant much comment; but where is all of this malignant echo chamber activity that you say should be excised? The content of the political positions section of the main article has been pretty stable (and presumably uncontroversial) for the past couple of months, during a period in which there have been many other changes to the article. I am reverting the section header change. Dezastru (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This was recently discussed by three editors at the FAC review for this article.  The unanimous consensus there was that a subheader would avoid redundancy.  Unlike many other articles, this one is arranged chronologically, so it makes little sense to repeat a position (or position change) from 1994 or 2005 in the description of current political positions.  This is the exact same rationale for excluding a "Personal life" heading.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, what specific instances of redundancy have become such an oerwhelming problem that this move is necessary? Dezastru (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC) 

Changing the header to a subheader would be appropriate regardless of the present content in that subsection, because it clarifies for readers what is there, and steers editors away from including more redundant material in the future.  Regarding material there now that is redundant, I think Wasted Time R described some of it at the FAC page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've done the moves that were proposed, so that you can see what it looks like under this design.  The things moved out of the "Political positions" subsection are

1. Prior stances on abortion (now merged into existing treatment in 1994, 2002, and 2003-07 sections)
2. Note on change of view on stem cell research (now covered in Note to 2003-07 section, where stem cell is already mentioned as alleged motivator for abortion view change)
3. Position on TARP (now covered in Between section)
4. Position on auto bailout (ditto)
5. Belief in American exceptionalism (done by GabeMc earlier, merged into existing treatment on book in Between section) 

What's left in the "Political positions" subsection are current stances on operational issues going forward.  All prior positions or positions on non-operational issues (such as TARP and auto bailout, both of which are done and in the past) are handled in the chronological narrative sections where the position was taken or was relevant.  Dezastru is correct that this is a departure from how "Political positions" top-level sections are handled in other articles.  However, I've never been very satisfied with existing practice, because those sections tend to get very stale.  Look at Fred Thompson#Political positions, for example.  It's a bunch of positions from the mid-2000s, written in the present tense.  Are any of these still true?  Still relevant to his current career as an actor and commercial spokesperson?  Assuming Romney loses the election next month (and most likely leaves politics to spend time on boards of directors and with his grandkids), what would a top-level "Political positions" section mean two or four years from now?  If it's tied to the campaign, then its scope is clearer (and in fact I would expect it to wither away over time for positions that were not biographically significant).  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Section should be a summary.  Agree that positions on issues that are now moot can be left out of the section which is #1 -#4 on your list.   IMO at least a brief mention of #5 should be in there. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

#5 could be adjusted by changing the text from "In the book, Romney writes of his belief in American exceptionalism" to "Romney is a proponent of American exceptionalism" and changing the cite from the book to something recent, like this WaPo story.  Then it could be relocated back to the beginning of the foreign policy paragraph in "Political positions".  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC) 

I left a message for Avaya1 about this.[5]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed removal of Lenore pin

There have been some valid concerns of image stacking, and I think the Lenore campaign pin should go. It's not a high-quality image and doesn't even picture Lenore herself. What say you? —Eustress ^talk 15:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The concern about image stacking is misplaced. According to Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, "It is common to have two pictures that logically should be grouped together." Picture stacking involves a situation where there should be text in between two unrelated pictures. The image of the button logically goes very well with the image of the poster; both images show the parents' political paraphernalia. The template used to display these two images would not even allow vertical juxtaposition if that were always "stacking". And the quality of the button image is more than sufficient to see very clearly what the button looks like. No one during the ongoing Featured Article Review (or during the previous Peer Review) has objected to this image, and I would support keeping it even if this article had a surplus of images (which it does not).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed removal of BCG logo

Why is this image in the article? He was only with the firm 2 years, and since the image does not even include a pic of Romney, I think this should go. —Eustress ^talk 15:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. This image shows the logo of Boston Consulting Group (BCG), where Romney began his business career. This colorful little image does not show Romney, but it is unusual for every single image in a featured BLP to show the subject of the BLP. Moreover, due to its small size, this image does not accompany any biographical text other than the BCG text, which increases rather than decreases the image's relevance. If we had a surplus of images for this article (which we don't) then this image might be replaced, but until then it seems fine to me, and no one during the ongoing FAC has objected to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:PERTINENCE says images should be "significantly and directly related to the article's topic" -- a criterion the BCG logo does not meet. This is akin to inserting a logo for any other organization with which Romney has had an affiliation (BYU, Harvard, LDS Church). The Bain logo makes sense (although a picture of Romney working at Bain would have more EV) since he co-founded the company and led it for several years, but the BCG logo should go as not meeting the pertinence guideline. —Eustress ^talk 18:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's what the guideline says:

“ Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals....Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. ”

Because of the small size of this image, it only accompanies relevant text about BCG. If it were a larger image that necessarily accompanies unrelated text, then I would agree with you. And please also note that this article has "few visuals" prior to the section about the 2008 campaign (therefore the guideline disfavors removal).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Bain Capital and LDS in the lede

The lede says:

“ In 1984, he cofounded and led the spin-off company Bain Capital, a highly profitable private equity investment firm that became one of the largest of its kind in the nation....During his business career, Romney helped to lead a district of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Boston area; from 1977 until 1994, he served as a member of the lay clergy in a variety of roles, first as a counselor to the president of the stake in Boston, then as the bishop of his ward (head of his local congregation), and later as president of a stake near Boston. ”

This is all accurate, but lopsided. Either too much about LDS or too little about Bain Capital. It seems to me that we should either expand the Bain Capital sentence to identify the particular positions and titles he had in the company, or alternatively truncate the LDS sentence by removing everything after the word "roles".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"Cofounded and led" is a succinct description of Romney's role within Bain Capital; I don't think adding "managing general partner" and "CEO" and whatever is going to be of much benefit. One thing you could add is that it started as a venture capital outfit and then switched to private equity. Adding anything beyond that is likely to run into contentious issues that are typically best avoided in leads.

As for the LDS material, I thought that what used to be in the lead was adequate: "Active in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Romney served during his business career as the bishop of his ward (head of his local congregation) and then stake president in his home area near Boston." As for the recent rewrite/expansion of the lead in this area, I wasn't involved. I have my own problems with it. What is meant by a "district" of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? It isn't linked and the District (LDS Church) article describes is an alternative to a stake, not a synonym of it. Why is the counselor to the president role included? That was minor - it deserves mention in the article body but not the lead. Why are "Boston area", "in Boston", and "near Boston" all included? It should be possible to refer to the geographical aspect just once. Why is "local church" so stated? If there's one thing that three mentions of Boston should have made clear, is that whatever he did was local, not regional or national. As for adding that his roles are part of being in the lay clergy, I'm okay with that. As for adding the "1977 until 1994" dates, I would skip the starting date (or use 1981, when he became bishop). It's okay to say that he stepped down from these roles when he ran for senator, but I'm not sure the mechanics of "After stepping down from Bain Capital ... he resumed his position at Bain Capital" are necessary to include. We don't describe the mechanics of his Bain Capital -> Bain & Co. return or of his Bain Capital leave of absence during the Olympics (nor should we), so why get into this here? Readers will assume correctly that he ran for office, didn't win, and carried on with his existing job.

But due to recent disagreements in the lead and edit summaries like "Wasted [...] can you really revert me at will at an article on probation?", it would be best if I don't try to change the lead myself. So I leave it to you ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what I'll do is restore the sentence that used to be in the lead, and then of course any improvements to it can be discussed here at the talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)