Jump to content

Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Controversies Section Need be added

Given that Mitt Romney has been engaged in many high profile controversies i.e., Romneycare and his seemingly inconsistent views on abortion (to name a few), I feel that a diservice is being done by not includng them in the article. Though they need not be worded as to cast him in a bad light their absence creates the appearance of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.17.163.215 (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  • oppose: Controversies should be handled in each section. Given Mitt's nature we should just quote his strong opposition to all of his policies. Hcobb (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely no. For articles like these, separate "Controversies" sections or subarticles are a poor practice and are considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. In particular, back in 2007 a special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' biographical articles of such treatment — see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 1#Status of "controversies" pages for the history of that effort — and the same thing has been done for any of the 2012 contenders. The things that you mention are all included in the article, in their proper chronological place and context. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Gee, maybe the Republican who wrote the above opposition might like to visit the Wikipedia page for Bill Clinton entitled "Public Opinion"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Public_opinion), or the one entitled "Allegations of sexual misconduct" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Allegations_of_sexual_misconduct)? Or, how about the one for John F. Kennedy called "Extra-marital relationships(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK#Extra-marital_relationships)? After all, if these sorts of sections are considered "a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism" for Republicans, then they certainly must also be a violation for Democrats. Or do we have separate rules for each party now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.226.142 (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Gee, maybe if you bothered to click through to the link given above and now again you would have seen a list of pages where controversy sections were integrated into the text which included these names: Obama, Clinton, Richardson, Biden, Paul, Giuliani, McCain, Hunter. Looks to me about 50/50 Democrats and Republicans. Further, WTR clearly said we worked hard 4 years ago on articles about Presidential candidates to eliminate sections that were just a collection of controversies and criticisms, and instead integrate the notable ones into the text of the articles in their proper chronology. Of course the JFK and Bill Clinton articles were not a part of that effort, as they weren't running for anything, so they aren't relevant to his point. I'd also say that there's a difference between a section about a series of related controversies that form a whole of sorts, as in the extramarital affairs, and a section that is basically a laundry list of various unrelated controversies. WTR is right that as a rule we try to avoid such sections, and work hard to integrate the material that should be integrated. So before you accuse someone of being a Republican singling out Republican articles to whitewash, please check your facts and try to be a bit less defensive. On the other hand, maybe I'm a Republican too. Tvoz/talk 04:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) None of the examples 76.126.226.142 gives are of catch-all sections called "Controversies" that lump together every supposedly controversial thing someone has done, but rather are specific sections dealing with particularly high-profile, critical events or sets of events in the subject's life. And such sections do exist for Republican politicians' articles too. For example, Richard Nixon has a "Reelection, Watergate scandal, and resignation" section, John Ensign has an "Extramarital affair" section, David Vitter has a "D.C. Madam scandal" section, Newt Gingrich has an "Ethics sanctions" section, and so forth. All of these are appropriate usages of sectioning. The original poster here wanted to put Romneycare and abortion shifts into a "Controversies" section, but that's really silly. Neither of these are legal or ethics controversies but instead are the normal things that politicians do – get laws passed that some people don't like, shift positions over time - and both are adequately covered in this article's "Governor of Massachusetts" and "Political positions" sections, with added detail in the Governorship of Mitt Romney and Political positions of Mitt Romney subarticles. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Destroyed records from governorship

Just as a heads-up, Reuters and several other reliable sources are reporting that before jumping into the 2008 GOP primary, Romney spent about $100,000 of taxpayer money in a legal, but unprecedented, effort to hide or destroy the records of his governorship ([1]). I will leave it to the regular editors of this article to decide whether and where this should be briefly mentioned. MastCell Talk 20:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me. I used to see how the people he brought into the upper-brass of the MBTA behaved. DOESN'T surprise me at all. 'Birds of a feather---- "
P.S. It's on the frontpage of Yahoo right now. [2] 71.124.254.127 (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Some of this came out a little while ago. As a result of the previous publicity, our daughter article on his governorship includes this paragraph:

At the end of Romney's term, several of his staffers purchased the hard drives from their state-issued computers, and emails were deleted from the server.[179] Under the Massachusetts Public Records Law, the emails did not have to be made public but did have to be preserved.[179] Terry Dolan, who worked as director of administration under Romney and several other governors, has said that scrubbing the servers was a common practice but that selling the hard drives was not.[180] When news of the actions became widely known in 2011, a Romney spokesperson said that the purchase of the computer equipment "complied with the law and longtime executive branch practice."[179] Aides to Romney's three predecessors as governor said that they did not know of any prior sales of hard drives to staffers.[180] When questioned on the subject in 2011, Romney responded that he had not wanted the information to be available to "opposition research teams".[181]

The additional information now being reported should, at a minimum, be added to that paragraph. In light of the increased attention being paid to the subject, it probably merits a summary here in the main bio. JamesMLane t c 04:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added the $100K amount to the Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Last_year_of_term treatment of this that JamesMLane started. I'm not sure whether it merits inclusion in the main article or not ... two months from now, or two years from now, or twenty years from now, will anyone think this was one of the major aspects of his governorship? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So the staff of Governor Romney followed the law, broke no Massachusetts rules or regulations, and followed a practice that was done by previous occupiers of his office, and you believe that it needs to be mentioned in his Bio? Why? Because his liberal opponents brought it up hoping to make him look bad by the mere appearance of impropriety? Is that really something biographical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.245.159 (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Public image section

Article now has one (created with an edit summary referencing Mike_Huckabee#Public_image, George_W._Bush#Public_image_and_perception, Hillary_Clinton#Cultural_and_political_image, etc., etc.).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, on 2nd thought, that particular child article seems pretty bare, at present, so for the time being the suggested section has been rmvd.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The way it stands now after a change I just made, Public image of Mitt Romney and Electoral history of Mitt Romney are both listed in the "See also" section, rather than having the empty-except-for-xref main sections that seem to bother you. Note that both are also linked from the red "This article is part of a series about Mitt Romney" box at the top of the article, as well as from the "Mitt Romney" nav template at the bottom, so they are pretty visible. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I put a {{summarize}} tag at the top of the public image sub but now that I examine the matter I see that the situation is really in reverse--material in this parent article needs to be included as well in the child and expanded. Articles of the "image" type obviously deal with whatever the public associate with whatever candidate. Sarah Palin: Librarian hot. Backwoods. Fiery. Etc. John McCain: War hero. "A maverick. Etc. Etc. Think especially, What do comics make jokes about associated with that person? With Mitt, it's: His looks ("central casting"-like/"sexy"--eg the latter by People Magazine). Hardnosed/data-driven(/"emotionless") demeanor and his uh um adaptability over time ("cyborg," etc.; labeled by politicos and commentators/responding to aspersions w rgd his flip-floppery). Duh, his Mormonism. Etc.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Education

Instead of the oblique stroke (/), the article should indicate that Romney has both J.D. and M.B.A. degrees. So it should read "J.D. and M.B.A. degrees" rather than "J.D./M.B.A." degrees. The virgule indicates that either may be chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Since it says "joint degrees", I think it's clear that it's "and" not "or", and the slash gets across that the two programs of study were taken at the same time rather than consecutively. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Money shot"

Doesn't this photo deserve a place in the article? It certainly seems newsworthy, and it's gotten lots of press. But I still struggle to decide where it should go and how to present it in a neutral way. Maybe someone else can take a stab at it. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The question is moot, because as with 99 percent of the photographs out there, Wikipedia does not have rights to use it. In fact, I don't think the image Image:George Romney and Mitt 1964.PNG that's in the article now has a legitimate fair use rationale. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images_2 "Unacceptable use" point #7 says "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." This is an AP photo, thus doesn't qualify for fair use, so I'm removing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that we include the photo itself, I'm suggesting that we include a written passage that discusses the photo. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Ehh ... 1980s yuppies in the private equity business were really into money ... what else would you expect? If one of the people in the photo hadn't ended up running for president, no one would think twice about it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why I wonder if it should be referenced in his presidential campaign section. It has gotten a lot of press and will probably get even more as opposing ad campaigns use it. I think it's worthy of mention. --Nstrauss (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This Article/page lost some historical perspective when the picture of young Mitt Romney and his Father George Romney was removed. It would be good to find a picture that meets WP standards of free use. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC) . . . "A picture is worth a thousand words", most often.

I'm the author of the George W. Romney article and the only four photos that I've ever found of him that WP could use are already in that article. Image restrictions are one of the more frustrating aspects of working on WP ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He likes to fire people

He say it today and get 158M Google hits [3] quite a result. --99.90.197.87 (talk) [19:04, January 9, 2012‎ ]

Of course his campaign team says it was taken "out of context". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/203051-romney-i-like-to-be-able-to-fire-people Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Flap of the day and yes out of context. There will be a lot of these during the campaign. Our job is to ignore them unless they stand the tests of time and impact. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't it go under "Hobbies" or something? Hcobb (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to put it in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, January 9, 2012 article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
My wife heard on the Glenn Beck radio show this morning that Mitt Romney's whole clip reveals he was speaking of executives in the insurance industry being able to fire those who are not doing their jobs. Whatever. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Close, but it was about liking to be able to fire people who provide services to you, like health insurance providers. It wasn't even about firing executives, it was about being able to fire Aetna to hire Blue Cross as your health insurance. This link should take you to :40 where he provides enough context to understand what he means when he says "I like to fire people" at :52.

I suspect many people will be coming here today to find out about this, and we owe it to them to provide the accurate information (disclaimer: I'm not a Romney supporter). --Born2cycle (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As an independent fiscal conservative, I don't think his remark requires any justification, even if it was taken out of context. I think nearly all of his Republican opponents have claimed that they will reduce spending, eliminate wasteful programs and contracts, or even eliminate whole departments. If they say they can do this without anyone getting fired, they are either naive or dishonest. I realize that this seems to be a minority opinion, so I think the current coverage in the article is sufficent. ~~Normfromga~~

military service

This article is missing key information about Mr. Romney's draft deferment, as a missionary, and, overall has the tone of a public relations piece. Please reconsider. [22:58, January 9, 2012‎ Hlwelborn]

The Article covers his LDS mission to France. He was not drafted to Vietnam because of his mission.[4] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hlwelborn, you can't read. The article says this:
"Regarding the military draft, Romney had initially gotten a student deferment, then like most other Mormon missionaries had received a ministerial deferment while in France, then got another student deferment.[25][34] When those ran out, his high number in the December 1969 draft lottery (300) meant he would not be selected.[13][25][34][35]"
What more do you want it to say about this? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney is making history in Republican primary elections

"See Also" :: Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. This will be increasingly more important to this Article.

"2012 New Hampshire Primary Results: Mitt Romney Wins! ... 91% reporting:" 11 January 2012 4:48 AM
Mitt Romney 90,634 votes 39%
Ron Paul 52,720 votes 23%
Jon Huntsman 38,789 votes 17%
Newt Gingrich 21,686 votes 10% I
Rick Santorum 21,490 9%
Rick Perry 1% ...

http://2012newhampshireprimary.com/ . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Romney hasn't done anything historic in this primary. But if you want to work on election results, the New Hampshire Republican primary, 2012 article is the place for you. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. WP has a unwarranted, (and from me, unwanted), tradition of including information from what I consider biased sources, but WP editors consider wise and the most reliable. Many talking heads have pointed out Romney's "historic" and (more accurately) "first time a non-incumbent Republican primary" hopeful has done such-and-so. At first I had trouble understanding what they were saying. I'll be 'watching' the other Romney pages and 2012 election pages, but let other decide what is "Historic" and what this word means. Thanks! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
To me, his double win sort of has double asterisks, because Iowa was a virtual tie and NH was pretty much on home turf. We'll see what happens in SC and Florida – if he runs the table on those that would probably bear a 'historic' mention in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

More recent infobox image

File:Mitt_Romney_by_Gage_Skidmore_3.jpg was in use as the lead image for this article for a time, but it has since (can't identify the diff) been changed back to File:Mitt_Romney.jpg. I prefer the former since it is much more recent (the latter is a few years old). Thoughts? —Eustress talk 16:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the change, too. I preferred the former, for the same reason. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears a user has gone ahead and reinstated it. —Eustress talk 02:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The general WP practice for government people has been to use the most recent official portrait. For people like Romney who are not currently in office, we use the most recent sort-of-official-looking portrait. The Skidmore one is thus more suitable than the older one, although still not ideal. What may happen at some point this year is that the campaign releases a new official-style portrait and agrees via OTRS to make it available to WP. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Article about Bain record

I think this piece from The Wall Street Journal might be a good source for this article's section on Romney's business career. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've incorporated it into the article. But I just used the raw numbers (as well as those from another study, also off the same Deutsche Bank raw material). I shied away from the "rate at which the firms Bain invested in ran into trouble appears to be higher than experienced by some rival buyout firms during the era" statement because the story accompanied it with so many caveats and methodological issues. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks good, I think that was the right approach. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

POV tag on Political positions section

User:Xris0 has put a POV tag on the "Political positions" section with the comment "flagging because this is written like an advertisement from his campaign, speaking of vague instincts and ideologies rather than concrete NPOV positions". Dealing with these two claims:

I hardly see how any section that includes these sentences or phrases can be construed as an advertisement:

  • "Until his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, he was registered as an Independent. In the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries, he had voted for the Democratic former senator from the state, Paul Tsongas."
  • "In the 1994 Senate race, Romney aligned himself with Republican Massachusetts Governor William Weld, who believed in fiscal conservatism and supported abortion rights and gay rights"
  • "During his time as governor, Romney's position on abortion changed [and on a bunch of other social issues]"
  • "This increased alignment with traditional conservatives on social issues coincided with Romney's becoming a candidate for the 2008 Republican nomination for President."
  • "He displayed a new-found admiration for the National Rifle Association and portrayed himself as a lifelong hunter."[With note that describes how bogus this was]
  • "Skeptics, including some Republicans, charged Romney with opportunism and having a lack of core principles."
  • "The fervor with which Romney adopted his new stances and attitudes contributed to the perception of inauthenticity which hampered that campaign."
  • "while George was willing to defy political trends, Mitt has been much more willing to adapt to them"
  • "... criticisms of ideological pandering ..."
  • "it was an invitation to be called a phony"
  • "Romney "has always campaigned as something he probably is not."

To be any more direct about Romney's lack of core ideological principles would violate BLP rules. And the article does give Romney's perspective on this question, as well as include the perspective of several thoughtful writers. But the overall pattern of Romney's behavior is clear for anyone to see.

Regarding not including concrete positions, there are too many of them, and too many changes over time within each one, to include them all here. That's what the Political positions of Mitt Romney article is for. There, effectively unlimited space is available to explore all issues and their complexities and nuances regarding the stances Romney took. To try to do that in very compressed form in the main article just leads to endless editorial battles. With members of Congress, there is an easy way to avoid this trap and use the various ideological scores that well-known publications give to them; see FA article John McCain#Political positions and GA article Joe Biden#Political positions for a couple of examples of this (each has separate "Political positions of X" articles as well). But for a non-legislator, such scores and ratings don't exist. So instead, this section describes a few of Romney's best-known positions (and changes), but mainly is an analytical summary of Romney's political stances and ideology and worldview as a whole. I strongly believe that this combination of summary section together with detailed positions article is the best way of handling this.

So in sum, I think this POV tag is unjustified and should be removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. If an editor has a problem with something there, let him discuss it here before drive-by tagging. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I just read through the section, it seems clearly NPOV to me. The comment given while tagging appears totally off target. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Predecessor as Governor of Massachusetts

Romney was not preceded by Paul Cellucci. His direct predecessor was Jane Swift, who served as acting governor after Cellucci was appointed Ambassador to Canada. Can someone with editing privileges make this change?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Massachusetts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salada63 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction has been made in infobox.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
For a long time the infobox had "Paul Cellucci (Governor) Jane Swift (Acting Governor)" which seemed to keep both perspectives happy, so I've gone back to that. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

supression of discussion

How one can posit referenced facts have or do not have sense ?

Specifically, what edits or content are you referring to?--JayJasper (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
If this is what you're referring to, it does not belong here. As other editors have previously - and rightly - pointed out, this page is not a forum on Romney, but rather it is for discussion of improvements and modifications to the article.--JayJasper (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes the refs were put here to improve article. There was no forum. The art is blocked so the wikiaktiv can only add content. The reverters history clearly show what they work for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2012

In early life- it states his father "had been born in Mexico". It seems they are trying to make it seem like it's not important. His father and grandfather were born in Mexico. That makes him half mexican. Would there be any question of that if he was darker?

Tovanche1 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
His grandfather was born in Utah, not Mexico. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Google Mitt Romney top contributors"

Team, how can we hide the fact that Romney's top contributors are mostly banks? Although most voters won't google such term, it's clear the media can pick this up. Any ideas? For example

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286 [02:32, January 15, 2012‎ 108.80.156.25]

As it says on that webpage, corporations don't make campaign contributions, people do. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Where his Super PAC money is coming from would also be interesting. At some point I'll add this in, but it needs a source with more analytical value than just reading an opensecrets.org web page. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

potential NYT resources

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is this page called Mitt and not Willard Romney?

Is there some reason an on line encyclopedia should refer to public figures by their nickname? If MITT is acceptable Dick Nixon or Fritz Reagan? I propose the name of the page be changed to Willard Romney Cosand (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Not likely. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC) Dick Nixon went by Richard Nixon, as far as I know.
As a close analogy to Romney -- a prominent politician who's best known by his middle name -- note that the article about Thomas Woodrow Wilson is at Woodrow Wilson, where most people would look for it. Both Willard Romney and Willard Mitt Romney redirect here, so the handful of readers who know and search for his correct first name will find the bio anyway. JamesMLane t c 04:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the OP is a troll, joining the collection on this page that already features the Climate Change IP troll and the Tangled Sentences IP troll. Fortunately in a few minutes WP will go into blackout and they'll have to find some other outlet ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
OP, you mean like the blp for James Richard "Rick" Perry? Or that for Piyush "Bobby" Jindal? Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley? ... Janice "Jan" Brewer? Jerry Brown? Chris Christie? Mitch Daniels? Rick Scott? John Nathan Deal, the current governor of Georgia? Clement Leroy "Butch" Otter, that of Idaho? etc. etc. etc. (see List of current United States governors)? Or (see List of Presidents of the United States by name)--Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? David Dwight Eisenhower (see here)? John Calvin Coolidge, Jr.? Thomas Woodrow Wilson? Stephen Grover Cleveland? Hiram Ulysses Grant?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

2nd place in Iowa

The DesMoines Register is reporting that the GOP is now saying Romney came second in the Iowa Caucus. The sentence, "In the initial 2012 Iowa caucuses of January 3, Romney won with 25 percent of the vote, edging out a late-surging Rick Santorum by eight votes, with an also-surging Ron Paul finishing third." needs to be corrected to reflect the certified totals. I would prefer if a regular editor of this article could update this so there is no drama. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's now been corrected to include both the initial announced results and today's certified results. Both have to be given because Romney benefitted at least a bit from the initial perception that he had 'won', although anyone with any kind of familiarity with the grungy details of American voting would have considered either result an effectively equal performance. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to change the wording on the section regarding the Iowa caucus non-win for Mitt and Wasted continuously reverts the wording. Currently emphasis the initial erroneous reports that Romney had won and downplays the final certified results where Romney was behind Santorum.Jfmcel —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC).

Your first edit eliminated the initial Romney 'win' completely, which ignores the perception of victory that he benefitted from for two weeks, and your second edit gives some extraneous details about the problems in caucus results reporting that are good for the Iowa Republican caucuses, 2012 article but are unnecessary here. I'll tweak the wording further a bit though. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article reads like it was written by Romney campaign staffers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.135.2 (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Vague, general comments like this are next to useless. Give four or five specific examples of what you are concerned about and then possibly something can be changed. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Mitt be in quoation marks? There is no verifiable proof his middle name is "Mitt".

He will not show his birth certificate to prove his middle name is "Mitt", which therefore means without proof, it must be assumed "Mitt" is a nickname. I feel it is common knowledge his body language says he hiding something.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/news/29418469_1_romney-spokesman-eric-fehrnstrom-romney-family-mormonism http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57350334-503544/obama-team-exploits-romney-teams-birther-gaffe/ Eagleeyedelaphant (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)eagleeyedelaphantEagleeyedelaphant (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So what? HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Per this Boston Globe citation, "The Making of Mitt Romney: Interactive Timeline," yes:

1947  Willard Milton "Mitt" Romney is born on March 12 in Detroit.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Per this BG piece mentioned above, in 2007 Romney's press flack said "It’s Willard Mitt Romney on the birth certificate." But the birth certificate isn't public. Oh great ... Wasted Time R (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, so what? HiLo48 (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
And are you going to have this discussion at Newt Gingrich as well? HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
His article says Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich. Just sayin'. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. OK. but the article title doesn't differentiate his nickname. It's surely not a big issue here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
It matters simply for the sake of accuracy in the article. I think the BG timeline instance pointed to above is likely a mistake by some graphics editor. If you look at BG series part 1, it has this contemporaneous usage: "George Romney ... took time out to write to the relatives and colleagues ... 'Well, by now most of you have had the really big news, but for those who haven't, Willard Mitt Romney arrived at Ten AM March 12.'" In announcements like that one, parents almost always use the child's full, formal name. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
We mere Wikipedians may not be able to come up with a verifiable answer to this question--in light of the fact that apparently Katie Couric, per a blogpiece posted on 60 Minutes' website, intrepidly has been researching it since back in aught-seven.</facetiousness>--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 January 2012

The article on Mitt Romney says the following:

"In the initial 2012 Iowa caucuses of January 3, Romney was announced as the victor on election night with 25 percent of the vote, edging out a late-surging Rick Santorum by eight votes, with an also-surging Ron Paul finishing third[248] (but sixteen days later, Santorum was certified as the winner by a 34-vote margin).[249]"

I would like to see this article mention that the certified vote does not include eight precincts which are unaccounted for. Footnote 249 in the Mitt Romney article makes clear mention of this. Also, iowagop.org has a vote tally which shows those precincts as missing.

Thanks for your time. Stoutadam (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Stoutadam (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That is good to include in the Iowa Republican caucuses, 2012 article but is unnecessary here. The accounts that I've read say that the initial counts for those precincts indicate that Santorum was ahead in them too, and would have a 69-or-so vote margin if they had been counted. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Belief on OCTA and other Canibis legalization Acts?

Any one know his beliefs on such issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.227.95 (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The place to go is Political positions of Mitt Romney. If it isn't there, research the answer and add it to that article.

Wrt image section and child article

Currently the public-perceptions-of-Mitt sub-article actually contains little specifically about his image in it. However, if the content in the blp wrt this section were expanded there, that article might come to fit keep its present title--otherwise, it ought be rechristened "background and identity" or some such: just in my humble opinion. Anyone else have any opinion on how-'n'-where wiki covers this aspect?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the 'sync' tag you placed in the main article. First, the main article is one of the most visible in all Wikipedia – approaching 2 millions views for the month – and doubt about it shouldn't be placed in readers' minds unless there is a very real concern. Second, it's the responsibility of the Public image of Mitt Romney article to pull in new material from the main article if it sees fit. So any tag belongs there, not here. Third, Public image of Mitt Romney is not a child article per se at this point, since there is no explicit parent summarization. That's because Fourth, the Public image of Mitt Romney article is pretty awful. It's 90% Mormonism, 9% unnecessary bio recap, and 1% other stuff. You can't tell me that this is a legitimate representation of the weighting of Romney's "public image". Of all the talk about Romney these days, how much has centered on his religion? Maybe 15%, not 90%. So the bottom line is the main article is not responsible for trying to make sense of Public image of Mitt Romney, that article has to do that on its own. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Wasted Time R, why do half of your talk page comments address the other party and what he or she did instead of the underlying issues? E.g the tag said that the material in this article needed to be included in the sub, to which you argue that such a housekeeping tag leads readers to, um, Think Something Bad About The Article. Where do you get this stuff? When the actual case is that legit pointers such as this one advertise for the articles' many readers to BECOME WIKIPEDIANS by their ADDRESSING THE REFERENCED ISSUES. Your tone indicates an interest in a few akin-to-credentialed Editors-with-a-capital-E polishing off this topic and presenting it to the public. But what a wiki does is to INVITE the public to assist in the never-complete project (through sketching and resketching notable subjects and erasing and drawing in and re-erasing and redrawing in its pieces here and there whenever it needs to be made more accurate and/or succinct.

The sub needs to be filled out. You've been watching too many political debates because your argument tends to rely on characterizations/labeling instead on the underlying issues of what notable details need to be covered to produce a picture of the subject that's more complete. Your ad hoc and circular thrusts notwithstanding, the bottom line is that the Public Image sub needs to be made more inclusive or else refocused: a contention with which you don't seem actually to disagree, yet which you completely bypass. ...Through your contention (to my reading) that the sub-article is akin to mere pop-culture fluff not meriting summary in a parent article, yada yada. Get over urself... Um, your False Pride in having shepherded it admirably to Good Article status and seek after the "true" . . "pride" in our working together to get as much competent and complete coverage of our topic as poss.
[Btw, I'm going over to the F.A. page and nom ur article here for it. Ciao. <smiles>]
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that Public image of Mitt Romney needs to be greater expanded or scope or renamed to just deal with Mormonism. Since you seem to be most interested in this subject, why don't you work on that? (I almost never tag articles; if it really bothers me, I start working on it, otherwise I just walk away.) I just don't want that article's problems to cast doubt about the validity of this article. And you should know that articles up for FAC can't have any improvement tags in them. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, yeah, to me the various scaffoldings on WP aren't unsightly. I suppose FA articles can't have improvement tags (if you'd class the pointer as one?), even so, when ud nom, it cudd b rmvd, btw. Whatev--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Article needs link in it (typically at the top of a section) to public image sub-article?

wp:IPC's lede:

Many articles about subjects with broad cultural impact have sections titled "In popular culture," "Cultural references," or "In fiction," which exclusively contain references to the subject in popular culture. When these sections become lengthy, some Wikipedians spin them off into separate articles to keep main articles short.
When properly written, such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not.
When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract non-notable entries, especially if they are in list format.

Topics concerning the issues of the public receptions of well-known figures is a type of coverage at which WP can excel and even distinguish itself from print encycolopedias. Of course, info that might find temporary/somewhat permanent placement in such a daughter article may/may not be even mentioned in a series' mother article. Just as with concern a theoretical sub-article about Mitt's career with the Bain companies (or Newt's Western Georgia College years) that should either have its content merged with Mitt's (Newt's) main blp or else should be linked to in the main blp, I believe the same approach/decision is applicable w/concern to popular-culture/compendium-of-opinions-about-the-main-subject - type articles.

IOW - Is the sub-article's coverage of R's religion so anemic that nothing of encyclopedic value is included there that does not already appear in this main blp? If the answer is yes, then a merger should be considered. (Eg recently I added some minor content to Seamus (dog), and, noting the current deletion discussion, I researched a bit and came across the AFD for the biography of Paris Hilton's chihuahua Tinkerbell, which article ended up being merged with its parent). If the answer is no, then, I believe, per the guidelines, a link to the sub should be provided from this article.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Alma mater in the info box

Yes, he attended Stanford, which is noted in the article. However in the info box, it now lists Stanford as one of his alma maters. The last time I noted this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mitt_Romney/Archive_7#Alma_Mater), Stanford was not listed in the info box, but instead was in the introduction (and subsequently removed). Now the opposite is true.

Stanford doesn't consider him an alum, nor does he claim an affiliation with the school. It should be permanently removed from the info box, since the minor detail of his single-year attendance is more than covered by an entire paragraph with 3 different sources at the very beginning of section 1.2. (Really, he's already an alum of Harvard; there's no need for this disingenuous partial-association stuff.) 66.59.249.107 (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't merit infobox-level visibility and I've removed it. It's covered in the article text and it's included in Category:Stanford University alumni (there was a whole discussion of this a while back, and consensus from the University project was that the category was warranted), but that's enough. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Self-Identify Mexican American

Romney has stated he would not mind people to regard him as a Mexican American, although he believes that people may view him as not being honest, as reported in the Los Angeles Times. Should this be included in the article? What weight should this statement be given? Would the subject's self identification as a Mexican American, and documented heritage connection to the nation-state of Mexico be sufficient to label the subject in the category Mexican American?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you link us to the actual article where this was reported? I'd be interested to know what his actual words were. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
It's the Christian Science Monitor (link) and R had been asked the question by Jorge Ramos.
...the Romney clan does have that connection to their patriarch's birthplace in Chihuahua, Mexico.
So does it amount to anything at all for Romney and the Latino vote?
“Absolutely,” says Charles Dunn, author of “The Presidency in the 21st Century.”
If a candidate has a connection to another people and culture, he says, “he should use it to the greatest effect,” and Romney's background means he has a story to tell.
Americans love a story well told, he notes, “and this is the tale of his own father’s beginning and his love for the Mexican people and their culture.”
Other presidents have used family connections to their benefit, notably John F. Kennedy though his wife. “He made the effort to speak German, and his own wife, Jackie, spoke French, which was a great plus for him,” he says.
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I was looking for two things in the source, that Romney did describe himself that way, and that a third party has described him that way. It seems that he didn't quite say he was Mexican American, and the article doesn't quite describe him that way. I don't think we're quite there yet. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

“…my dad was born in Mexico, and I am proud of my heritage. But he was born of U.S. citizens who were living in Mexico at the time, and was not Hispanic. He never spoke Spanish, nor did his parents. So I can’t claim that honor.”---Ramos interview w R transcript

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Ramos-interview vid--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Clip of George about his Mexican background--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Christian Science Monitor did report it as well. The LA Times article is as follows:

  • Paul West (25 January 2011). "Would Mitt Romney be the first Mexican American president?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 26 January 2012.

In the article it says rather specifically the following:

  • I would love to be able to convince people of that, particularly in a Florida primary,

    — Mitt Romney

  • I don’t think people would think I was being honest with them if I said I was Mexican American,

    — Mitt Romney

He does appear to self-identify in the article, but does not believe that people would believe his self-identification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Additionally let us look at the full context of the statement in the transcript:

JR: The mother of former governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, she was born in Mexico, and he calls himself Mexican-American. Your father was born in Mexico. So the question is, are you Mexican-American? Could you be the first Hispanic president?
MR: I would love to be able to convince people of that, particularly in a Florida primary. [Laughter.] But I think that might be disingenuous on my part, because, in my case, my dad was born in Mexico, and I am proud of my heritage. But he was born of U.S. citizens who were living in Mexico at the time, and was not Hispanic. He never spoke Spanish, nor did his parents. So I can’t claim that honor. But he lived in Mexico until he was five or six years old. And then, with the revolution in Mexico, his parents and he, as a young boy, came back to the United States and settled in the western part of the country.
JR: So you wouldn’t call yourself Mexican-American, even though he is Mexican by definition. I just read the Mexican constitution, and they would say that he is.
MR: I don’t think people would think I was being honest with them if I said I was Mexican-American. But I would appreciate it if you’d get that word out. [Applause.] And, by the way, we haven’t recognized someone in the audience here today, who is one of America’s great heroes, and that is the first Hispanic senator, Mel Martinez. I just want to have Mel Martinez be recognized. [Applause.] Mel? Thank you. I think Mel actually is Cuban-American, right? [Laughter.]

It appears from the full quote, that he does not directly answer the question, something that the LA Times article does appear to reflect. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
As the LAT writer makes clear, Romney was making a tongue-in-cheek remark with a chuckle. So no, he does not self-identify as a Mexican American. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, many Americans whose parents are born in other countries (eg Ireland, Germany, Mexico, etc etc etc) go to a consulate in order to apply for dual citizenship to have greater rights in that country. IMO, that Mitt would be allowed to so register [Edited: as a dual cit.] may be/not be a (semi-)determining factor, just as is that he has never seen a need.

Translation of form at Mexican consulates: "Dear Countryman/woman [Paisano] - If you are Mexican and have children born in the United States, by registering them in any Mexican consulate they will have dual nationality."--HuffPo

MSNBC video of dual-citizen US-Mexican Romney kin--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Gerald F. Seib (on tonight's Fla. debate): "[...]Romney...demand[ed...]Gingrich stop calling him 'anti-immigrant,'[...referencing] his father’s Mexico beginnings[...]."
  • Neil King, Jr: "Romney's mention[...]his father[...]was born in Mexico is noteworthy."

---WSJ

[...]Gingrich pulled a political ad that had applied the “anti-immigrant” label to Romney, but when asked whether he believed that description was accurate, he said he did.

Romney countered: “I’m not anti-immigrant. My father was born in Mexico. My wife’s father was born in Wales. They came to this country. The idea that I’m anti-immigrant is repulsive. It’s simply the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that has characterized American politics for too long.”---WaPo article • video

  • R somewhere on the campaign trail: "My father, by the way, was born in Mexico...." (See at about 1.0 minute mark in this Spanish-language news report: link.--Hodgdon's secret garden--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • AP on dad's citizenship status not having been dual: "[...]George was born a U.S. citizen, not Mexican, because his parents were U.S. citizens. And in those days, Mexico didn't grant dual citizenship so the parents had to choose one country or the other." (link)

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Tapped?

In the Business career section we've just had an addition telling us that Romney was "tapped to serve on the board of directors for Sports Authority..." I don't understand it. The word "tapped" is not used in the source. What's it mean? HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Tapped = Selected. 72Dino (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like slang or jargon. Can we use a better word, such as appointed? HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I just removed the word in question. —Eustress talk 22:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead structure

I also disagree with a change that was made without discussion to restructure the lead. For starters, it made the lead five paragraphs, in violation of WP:LEAD's limit of four. It presented some material in a different order than the article, which I don't think is wise. It added material about being married to Ann Romney and having five children, which is not otherwise biographically significant in the lead narrative (compare to, say, Bill and Hillary Clinton) and which is already sitting there in the infobox for all to see. It then added material about Ann Romney overcoming two diseases, which is discussed in the article text but doesn't need to be in this article's lead (and I don't think the breast cancer even belongs in her lead, but that's a subject for discussion at Ann Romney). Finally, for a subject that's heavily in the news like this one, the lead should end with the most current activities, so that it naturally be extended with whatever happens next.

So for all these reasons, I've reverted the lead to the previous structure which has been in place for a good amount of time. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

First, four paragraphs is a guideline, not a hard limit. Second, I see nothing in WP:LEAD indicating the lead should end with most recent information. Third, I think inclusion of family info (including his wife's catastrophic diseases and struggles) are crucial in establishing "a summary of [the article's] most important aspects." The TOC even presents family info on the same level as mission and university, both of which are covered in the lead; and Romney himself opens every debate with info about his family. I would like to see family info restored to the lead (see diff). —Eustress talk 17:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've added a sentence about his marriage and children into the lead. But her health struggles, while part of this article, are not in my view a "major aspect" of it. We have a GA article about her with good readership (150,000 views this month) and that's where readers can get the story about her, either by reading that lead or that whole article. The only debate I know of where he's mentioned her illnesses is the most recent one, in response to a question about why candidates' wives would make good First Ladies. His normal intro just says "I've been married for 42 years and have 5 children and 16 grandchildren." I agree that WP:LEAD doesn't say the most recent things have to be last, but I'm arguing that they should be for natural flow. But I am pretty sure a five-paragraph lead would get gonged at FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Thanks. —Eustress talk 22:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Boards of directors

Eustress added Mitt's stints on boards of directors to the lead and to the infobox. First, the one for Sports Authority needs a real source, as NNDB does not qualify - see discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_101#NNDB among other places. I looked around but couldn't find anything, although I didn't do an exhaustive search. Second, I don't think I've ever seen boards of directors placed in infoboxes; are there any examples you can point to? Third, I don't think these stints are biographically significant enough for Romney to put in the lead. Did he take any notable positions on them, such as arguing for a change in direction in the company or replacing top management? I have seen cases where board memberships are mentioned in the lead, where something happened during the stint. But I'm open to persuasion on this. And of course the ones that are well-sourced should be in the article body (and thanks for digging up the earlier stint on Marriott) . Wasted Time R (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rich businessmen all end up serving on a lot of boards. Unless there was some notable action he took as a board member, I don't see the point of including it -- especially not in infoboxes, which are usually too long anyway. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought it would be helpful to centralize his Board service somewhere, since it's currently dispersed throughout the article. The lead-mention of his board positions I proposed is quite brief, and the infobox inclusion seems appropriate, given the importance of boards and the nontrivial compensation he received from serving on them. And again, he's mentioned such service in several debates now. I would like to see this information restored to the lead (see diff). —Eustress talk 17:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The criteria for weighting in this article is not dependent upon what Romney says during debates! He avoids most mention of his church, but we don't. He doesn't talk about how his 2008 campaign came undone, but we do. Right now, his board service consists of only two positions (pending sourcing of the third), which as Coemgenus points out is not very notable for someone of his position. As for compensation, he earned $113K for his second board stint at Marriott, and you, not me, removed that amount out of the article with this edit. And I agree with that; compared to his $20M annual income from investments, it is fairly trivial. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm less confident now that Romney served on Sports Authority's Board from 1995-1999, since the company's 1999 10-k does not list him on the Board (source). I still think centralizing his service for Marriott and Staples would be nice -- I'm no longer convinced lead mention is necessary, but infobox mention might be helpful. —Eustress talk 17:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
In working on other BLPs, I've often found it difficult to pin down board of directors stints, especially in terms of finding all of them and in getting good sources for the years ranges. Anyway, I'm actually not that religious about infoboxes, so it's okay with me if you want to put these back in. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicknames and Aliases

I was wondering, what the procedure would be for adding Mitt's nicknames to his name/title in the article. His well known, well received nickname "Mittens" is, for whatever reason, not included in this article.

It should be. I can cite its usage, if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.95.164 (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

romney fiddler dog on roof

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

I've been debating whether to include that story ever since I started my heavy involvement on this article a couple of years ago. One problem is that it doesn't naturally fit anywhere in the narrative. Another is that I've never been sure how widely it's impacted peoples' perception of Romney; I get NYT home delivery and columnist Gail Collins manages to mention it every single time she writes about Romney, so I get a distorted picture. Interested in what others think. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
If this had been something that had been done recently it would probably be more of a story, however in 1983, at a time when few people used seatbelts or even knew they existed, it was simply not that big of a deal. I know that the left likes to make a big deal about it and goes into to prose about how the dog was probably terrified. Which itself is ironic since most dogs will stick almost their entire bodies outside the window while riding in a car if given a chance. It is little more than a political talking point from the left to claim that Romney is cruel to animals, which is simply absurd. Arzel (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
As has happened before, I don't agree with Arzel's approach that any view he characterizes as a "political talking point" and that he personally finds nonmeritorious must therefore be excluded from the article. Plenty of people consider this story relevant, but even if they're all wrong, nonmeritorious attacks deserve inclusion if they become significant. That Newt Gingrich has included this in a campaign ad, as reported by MSNBC, is a good indication of significance. According to The Hill this week, the story "is spreading again on the Internet". [5] A recent article in the Los Angeles Times concludes that the story doesn't reflect all that badly on Romney, but the mere presence of the article is another indication of mainstream coverage. Even the "Dogs Against Romney" page on Facebook was mentioned on the ABC News website.[6] (Wasted, you may be interested to know that Gail Collins was interviewed on NPR about her Seamus obsession. Maybe that should go in her article?)
The Boston Globe reporter who broke the story has commented: "Although I think it would be nuts for voters to base their presidential selection solely on this incident, it’s always struck me as a valuable window into how Romney operates. In everything the guy does, he functions on logic, not emotion." [7] That Globe piece also notes that some people think Romney merely strapped the dog to the roof with some rope. We should make clear that Seamus was in a carrier with a windshield. JamesMLane t c 16:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Why am I not suprised that James would want to include this tripe. WP is not a newspaper so that some people are making political points is not really all that relevant to his BIO. I find it interesting that your sources are all political talking point articles. Probably the best reason for not including it is because 4 years ago this was a huge political talking point from animal rights activist on the left and like clockwork the left is right back at it now that a new election is on the horizon. This is hardly new news and it wasn't deemed worthy of inclusion 4 years ago, so I don't see why this second attempt should be much different. Arzel (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Arzel, might I trouble you to provide the link to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that demands the exclusion of "political talking points" and of mainstream media stories that report on them? The reason I ask is that there are other places in the encyclopedia where (what I presume is) this policy or guideline is violated. For example, the "political talking point" about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has its own entire article and is mentioned, with a wikilink, in Obama's main bio article. If I try to remove this tripe, though, some right-wing POV warrior will probably demand to know the basis for the removal. I'd like to be able to provide the answer. Thanks in advance! JamesMLane t c 22:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I cannot believe that you are comparing this with Jeremiah Wright. Arzel (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I note that you studiously avoid stating whether the Wright thing fits into your invented category of "political talking points". The two matters are quite similar in that respect.
Are they different at all (besides one being about a Democrat and one about a Republican)? Sure they are. The Wright thing was clearly a bigger deal in terms of how loud Obama's opponents got about it. The issue with the dog incident is whether it's at least a big enough deal to be mentioned. That's why the anon who started the thread noted the Google hits, that's why Wasted queried "how widely it's impacted peoples' perception of Romney", and that's why I cited several MSM sources. All of us were making policy-based arguments.
If you're prepared to concede that there's no relevance to sneering at something as a "political talking point", maybe we can get somewhere. JamesMLane t c 20:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Really? If you are prepared to argue in favor of political talking points being added to Romney equal to Obama in their primary articles, then you better be prepared to argue for those talking points that are actually in the same zipcode. As for the Jeremiah Wright incident this is what is in the Obama primary article. Obama resigned from Trinity during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public. It is simply absurd to compare the two, even at their basic level. Arzel (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a left vs right thing or a campaign thing or a Jeremiah Wright thing or a Michael Vick thing. It's a quirky family history story that has captured the imagination of some people. Thanks JML for the link to the Swidey piece on this, I'm not as convinced this is a logic vs emotion deal but it did had some interesting theories about why the story has had some staying power. I'm still pondering where if anywhere in the article it could go. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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

When I cited the information about the Gingrich ad, it occurred to me that a mention in the campaign article would be appropriate. Is the story worth including in Romney's life outside of political campaigns? The problem with answering that question is that, in the several years since the story broke, Romney's done pretty much nothing of note except for political campaigning. JamesMLane t c 14:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Now that is not a very nice thing to say about Romney. He might say you have done nothing of note other than attack conservatives. It is not like he was living under a rock Arzel (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Now you're just being silly. Membership on a corporate board (per your link), meeting a few times a year, isn't a major commitment and wouldn't be the basis for a bio. Romney himself has joked that he's been "unemployed" since his term as Governor, and more than one commentator has noted that he's essentially been running for President full time since 2007. As for your pointless little dig at me, I'll freely admit that I'm not notable enough to be the subject of an article. So what? JamesMLane t c 20:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible wording

Snopes, in reporting the incident, says: "In that Boston Globe article, the incident was pointed to as an example of Romney's emotion-free crisis management style. Others viewed it differently, regarding the mode of canine transport the dog was subjected to as unnecessarily callous and cruel." [8] That seems to be a good summary of the competing POV's on this subject. We might state the facts in a sentence or two, then quote that summary verbatim, citing Snopes. JamesMLane t c 20:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Putting aside Romney, and leaving Seamus up on the roof for the moment, let's generalize. There seems to be a difference of opinion about this scenario (which may or may not apply to inclusion of the dog incident): Suppose there's information about a political candidate that's outdated, stupid, and irrelevant to the candidate's performance in the office being sought. Suppose further that the information nevertheless receives significant attention in the mainstream media and is picked up by one of the candidate's opponents and used in television advertising. In considering inclusion, how do you weigh these factors?
I ask because I've been frustrated at other editors' failure to give a clear answer. My own view is that candidates, party committees, the mass media (and other big corporations), miscellaneous celebrities, and other non-Wikipedia entities have considerable ability to direct the public conversation and to set the agenda. Often, what they're pushing wouldn't meet Wikipedia standards (not well sourced, not neutral, given undue weight, etc.). Nevertheless, some such things do become significant parts of the public discourse -- sometimes for good reasons, sometimes because of the push they're given or because of the superficiality of the public.
What should Wikipedia do in those instances?
To me it's clear that we serve our readers by describing the world as it is. We don't set ourselves up as the Wikigeniuses who will decide what incidents may properly be considered in choosing a President (or a Prime Minister). Down that road lies the death of NPOV. Instead, we report on matters that have received significant attention, even if we think they shouldn't have.
The dog incident has received less attention than, say, Romney's term as Governor, but still a fair amount. Our obligation is to assess such factors as mainstream media coverage and opposing candidates' positions and to consider significance on that basis, not on the basis of our personal opinions of the merits. JamesMLane t c 06:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I can see your point, but my thoughts on reading about the fact that this story was "picked up by one of the candidate's opponents and used in television advertising" were that it says a lot more about that opponent than it does about Romney. Maybe we include it in that opponent's article? One assumes that some wiser commentators have said something along the lines of what I have said. (Not that I'm that in touch with all of this.) If the incident is included in the Romney article, can the comments of such wiser commentators also be included? HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
If we go into detail about the criticism, then I agree with you that NPOV requires a fair presentation of the opposing opinion as well. The problem is that going that route, while satisfying NPOV, would entail giving too much space to the incident. That's the reason for my suggestion at the top of this sub-thread. Instead of directly quoting the Romney critics or the people you consider "wiser commentators", we could quote Snopes's summary of the opposing views: "[T]he incident was pointed to as an example of Romney's emotion-free crisis management style. Others viewed it differently, regarding the mode of canine transport the dog was subjected to as unnecessarily callous and cruel." That would give the reader a reasonably balanced picture without cluttering the article or according the subject undue weight. Would that satisfy your concerns? JamesMLane t c 00:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Could the section start off with words to the effect of "Opponents of Romney have raised the issue of...."? HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you're both off the mark. This has never had any effect on Romney's political viability nor has it ever been a major campaign issue. Rather, it's a quirky personal history item that some dog lovers and psychologically-oriented pundits have focused in on in the years since it became public. If it's included in the article it should be treated as such. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
had any [citation needed] effect on Romney's political viability . Both R, S candidates have dogged issues on roofing on dogs. Another candidate Jon Hundsman,just in case, kiss the dog & go [9] . The wording may be in section on how trustwordy is Romney: He say he and his familly love Seamus but he give dog up. It is plain fact. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It's more complicated than that. It started out as purely a quirky personal history item, so I don't think it would be appropriate to introduce it as something Romney opponents raised. On the other hand, it has figured in some of the judgments about Romney. Although it's not a major campaign issue, there has been some discussion of it in the context of praising or condemning Romney. The right balance is to introduce it as a quirky personal history item, with a sentence or two of description, but then to append the Snopes quotation about how it's been used in the political context. JamesMLane t c 06:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the BG reporter got closer with this bit in the piece you linked to above: "I think another reason for the story’s endurance is that Romney remains an enigma, the product of two of the most mysterious and least understood subcultures in the country: the Mormon Church and private-equity finance. So Seamus has become a shortcut for people trying to get a bead on a candidate whose image has shades of ageless businessman and Stepford husband." Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Another enigma is also his family illegal emigrantion to Mexico. His grempa crossed the border with no proper visa. The wording, perhaps, best to put in section about flipping. About the wording - be carefull with your language - Romney say[10] he will swamp any anemy he delclare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've not read any of the above discussion but thought I'd comment anyway (I'm allowed! lol): FWIW, perhaps the Obama's article's handling of the Wright association might provide a clue. Garnered from the search bubble I got "...campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public After a prolonged effort to find...." So, wrt Seamus, how about something along the lines, "After it became known from an interview with Romney's sons that the family dog had once ridden on the top of his car [blah blah blah...]."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The Jeremiah Wright business has no comparison to this. That was an association of Obama's that extended over many years in a significant area of his life and that had the potential for lasting political damage to Obama (after the election, Axelrod and Plouffe said the Wright fallout was the thing they got most worried about during the whole campaign). Now in the end, Obama was able to convey that he was no Wright and get past it. But it was a very significant episode in the campaign. Seamus has not been. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Wright was certainly more significant, but that doesn't mean that anything less significant than Wright must be omitted. Furthermore, as a general rule, comparisons to Obama are dubious because a President of the United States is an extremely important person whose bio could reasonably include a huge amount of material. Therefore, to keep the bio manageable, quite a bit of stuff that would make it into someone else's bio must, in a President's case, be covered only in a daughter article.
The latest indication that the dog story is nontrivial is this comment from Mark Halperin of Time magazine in an interview with Gingrich: "So this issue of electability, for a lot of voters is a serious issue — I'm not kidding — Gov. Romney once putting his family dog on the roof of the car and taking him on a long trip." [11] Even if Arzel's personal opinion is that it's "tripe", we have a leading political reporter opining that it's a serious issue for "a lot of voters". JamesMLane t c 09:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd much rather ride 12 hours with a dog inside a car than with Gingrich inside. Has Leno started making jokes about the Seamus story? Then we'd know it's seeped into the mainstream American consciousness. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't normally watch Leno so I don't know. I do know that I've seen multiple cartoons on the subject. One or two make fun of the particular incident (Romney sitting on a front porch talking about it while his host restrains the host's growling dog). More often, though, they assume knowledge of the incident and use it to make a different point (family in car, grim-visaged Romney at the wheel, disconsolate dog on roof, one kid explains to another "He asked to see Dad's tax returns"). My favorite, from a few months ago, had Romney standing beside the car at a gas station, cheerfully consulting a map marked "Road to the White House". In the carrier on top of the car is an elephant, looking desperate, and saying, "Hey, cowboy, can you get me out of here? Pizza guy, what about you? Lady, please help me!" It was a clever depiction of how a big chunk of the party has desperately looked to Perry, Cain, or Bachmann to stop Romney from getting the nomination. That there are toons like these is evidence of seepage, with or without Leno. JamesMLane t c 15:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't know about Leno; Letterman's been all over it for a while now, if that counts. Of course, Letterman hardly lets a night go by without a crack about Christie's weight, either, if that's the criteria for inclusion :) , Fat&Happy (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm finally convinced and I've added it to the article. One clause of a sentence in the main text, hooked to that good Swidey perspective that was mentioned above, with an explanatory Note that goes into more detail on story and its interest. That's generally how this article generally handles such things. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Wasted, I know that you're a New York Times reader, so you have an obsession about Gail Collins's obsession, but I really don't see it as being important enough for the Romney bio. The one mention in a Gingrich TV ad probably brought it to more people's attention than all of Collins's columns combined -- and even if there were fewer people, they were more important because they were South Carolina Republicans and it was during the runup to the primary. I also have some BLP concerns about saying that Collins, a living person, had an obsession. I suggest that we drop the Collins reference and mention instead that Gingrich included it in an ad. JamesMLane t c 04:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Characterization of "obsession" would need to be sourced. IAC it'd be better to let the fact of her interest in the matter speak for itself. Wall Street Journal: "The New York Times' Gail Collins has barely ever written a column about [R] without menioning Seamus the dog."[12]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
That Collins is obsessed with this topic is a stone cold fact – hell, this could be a textbook example of one form of obsession. This Google search shows a number of sources that support this characterization, and it's one of the most talked-about aspects of the whole Seamus story. I've added this PolitiFact piece to the cites for the Note, because it explicitly refers to Collins as obsessed and also because it carries more Romney family reaction to the story. Re the Gingrich ad, how often has that run? Has it been a mainstay of his negative attacks, or was it a one-off? I'd only explicitly mention him if it was the former. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Wasted, you weren't initially convinced that Romney's treatment of his dog was worth including, but now that it's in you seem inexplicably determined that one columnist's unusual level of interest in Romney's treatment of his dog is worth including. As I said above, it might well be worth a mention in the Gail Collins article, but I don't see it as being particularly important to the Romney bio. Even if the Gingrich ad was a one-off (which I suspect it was, although supplemented by the follow-up questioning to Gingrich by Time), it still had more of an impact on Romney than all of Collins's columns combined -- unless you think there are sources asserting that Collins's frequent mentions were all that kept the story alive over the years. JamesMLane t c 22:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It is not worth including, especially not in the primary article, however, if it is to be included the obsession of Collins is what is driving it. Altough I disagree on the notability of this and it is clear that it is a purely political talking point, I think that WTR initial version was quite neutral. Arzel (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I said from my very first mention that I thought Collins' obsession about it was a major aspect of the story, and I disagree with you about the effects. Repeated mentions in an opinion-making publication like the NYT is more important than a rarely-aired negative ad in one state. It's only important in Romney's bio as a quirky familiar history bit and as something that has helped form an image of him, and Collins has done more towards that than Gingrich has. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
cmt - Apparently the Irish Times decided to count 'em for a January 14 art.: "New York Times columnist Gail Collins has retold the Seamus story more than 30 times in five years." (link)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Political positions

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

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

Article structure and "Legacy" section

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

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

I understand the desire to maintain a chronological order, but some things (like church service, wealth/philanthropy) overlap with his business/government jobs, which is why tried to pull them out (see diff). (btw, FA Barack Obama also has a philanthropy section.) —Eustress talk 16:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The Obama "Philanthropy" section was only just added yesterday, by one of the editors here. It seems spurious to me. People with a lot of money will often give some of it away, but that does not in itself make one a notable philanthropist in a biographical sense. There has to be some large commitment of time, vision, purpose, human capital, etc towards philanthropic goals. Neither Obama or Romney do this, so neither article should have a "Philanthropy" section. And yes, chronological organization is never perfect, but I think Romney's wealth is better discussed before his political career sections than after it, since it all has come (and continues to come) from Bain Capital and since his wealth fueled all of his campaigns before this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

---American Heritage D.

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

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

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

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

Romney family

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

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

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

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

    Main article: Roosevelt family.

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

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

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

The info about the Pratt-Romney clan was removed in part due to its being unsourced. I feel a little silly searching for a source that Mitt Romney belongs to the Pratt-Romney clan but of course didn't have to look very hard.
  1. How's this from earlier this month in the New York Times: "The Romney and Huntsman families — two intertwined clans that go back to the early days of Mormonism — publicly split in 2008 when Mr. Huntsman, then the Utah governor, endorsed Mr. McCain."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Another one, dated 4 days later, from the Salt Lake Trib, titled "No love lost between cousins Romney and Huntsman": "...Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman share the same ancestor, early Utah settler and Mormon leader Parley Parker Pratt, though the two presidential candidates carry a lingering grudge that has seemingly grown wider on the campaign trail."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. "The precipitous mountain pass that led the pioneers down into the Salt Lake Valley was first explored by my great-great-grandfather, Parley P. Pratt."---Turnaround, by Mitt Romney (2004 - link)
  4. "...young Gaskell Romney married a Pratt girl, Anna Amelia. ... Anna Pratt Romney, George's mother, belonged to the bluestockings of the Mormon establishment."---Romney's Way: A Man and an Idea (1968)
  5. "Gaskell returned to Mexico and married Anna Amelia Pratt, who would become Mitt Romney's grandmother. Anna was descended from one of the most important families in the Mormon...."---The Real Romney (2012)
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Good job finding quality sources for this and for his national heritage. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Genealogy

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

Neither "source" says anything whatsoever about "Pratt-Romneys." Neither source says anything about "genealogically interconnected". Neither source says anything about "political family". In short - the sources are being used to back a claim they do not make and which they can not even be inferred as making. Thus a groiss violation of WP:BLP. Cheers - but backing a BLP violation as well as an absolute sourcing violation (asserting that a source says something it does not say) is a major problem on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec)And what WP guideline says that [your first post]? Or is it your own rule? And come on, this doesn't need to go to BLP/N, it can be resolved here by us reasonable folks.
However, looking at this further, I'm not so sure about the text we had. I see two sources for Romney being sixth-generation LDS (Jan Shipps as quoted in the New Yorker piece and the Alana Semuels piece in the LA Times) but now I also see some sources for him being fifth-generation (this CBS News page, this Reuters page). As I count it, it's five: Parley Pratt - Helaman Pratt - Anna Amelia Pratt - George - Mitt. Or, as this CSM story that was used as a cite says, GGGF - GGF - GF - F - Mitt. Right? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The rules about claims being in a reliable source are at WP:RS. That is whay we have sources FGS. We have no reliable sources as to how many generations are involved, and I suspect the weight which should be assigned to "number of generations" is quite nearly zero, And still zero reliable sources for the rest of the stuff - including the "Pratt-Romney" stuff. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC) In fact no news articles nor books support the "Pratt-Romney" existence as notable in any way at all. Collect (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, there are three statements in question:
  1. Descended from a genealogically interconnected political family sometimes known as the Pratt–Romneys
  2. Romney is a somethingth-generation member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  3. Through his father, he is a great-great-grandson of early LDS leader Parley P. Pratt.
Is your position that none of these should be in the article? In that case, there would be nothing that tells the reader that Romney is descended from some of the earliest founders of the LDS Church. Are you disputing on factual grounds that Romney is of that descent? Or do you think it's true but irrelevant to the article? Is there some alternate text that you would propose? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
There are ZERO RS sources for "Pratt-Romney". Thus claims using that term are unsourced. There are ZERO sources that such a family is a "political family" Thus it is unsourced. There are ZERO sources for that unsourced family being "geanealogically interconnected." That claim is also unsourced. There are ZERO reliable sources for Romney's genealogy. Thus claims about his genealogy are unsourced. ALL unsourced claims must be removed per WP:BLP. I can find sources for him being a descendant of Pratt, but that is about it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
When you first pulled Pratt-Romney from the article, I looked into it and came to the same conclusion you have, that the name and the WP article on it is a little OR/SYNTHish. But I have a greater tolerance for mild forms of that than most editors, and I thought that Hodgdon's newly added sources established support for the kernel behind the idea, so I was okay with Hodgdon's restoration. But if you can take Pratt–Romney family to AfD and it goes down, then that will certainly solve statement #1 ... Wasted Time R (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
No need when WP:BLP is clear and states the claims which are not supported must be removed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratt–Romney family is now up (done by someone not involved in this discussion). Wasted Time R (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think his descent from Pratt is in dispute, but even if we have to take it out now, a reliable source should appear if Romney gets the nomination. There's always some newspaper article about the candidates' ancestry. Gary Boyd Roberts is usually quoted. So let's just wait and see? In the meantime, I'll look for a RS.--Coemgenus (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Going back to statement #2, the family lines descending from the Mormon pioneers are very well known, since it's something they study a lot. The question is just the count of generations. Via the 'Romney line', it's also five, per BG series part 2: Miles Archibald Romney (converted) - Miles Park Romney - Gaskell Romney - George - Mitt. I think Jan Shipps must have miscounted and the LAT took it from WP (happens more often than you think). Wasted Time R (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand why you took out the Pratt-Romney sentence, but why delete "Through his father, he is a great-great-grandson of early LDS leader Parley P. Pratt."? That had two reliable sources. It's also in Romney's book, at p. 2. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
All Hallow's Wraith restored the previous text for #2 and #3, and I have now modified it to indicate Mitt is fifth generation and also to include Miles Archibald Romney as another ancestor. When two of your great-great-grandfathers became members of a new church within its first few years of existence, that's something worth describing. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
If and only if reliable sources find it important enough to publish. An editor here may find something to be "interesting" but unless a WP:RS reliable source thinks so as well, we can not use it. Collect (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
They do, and are used as the sources in the cites, and I've now added the two profile pages mentioned above that explicitly use the 'fifth-generation' description as cites as well. One thing I've seen in looking around news stories today is that Mormons fairly often identify themselves by how many generations they are (in the same way that descendants of immigrants to the U.S. often do). So I think the usage is appropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
As Wasted Time R says, Mormons are at the forefront of genealogical matters. In fact, those moving into the Intermountain West among Mormons often become surprised at the seeming tribalness this factor renders some discussions. So, in any case, a typical, high-profile LDS biography on Wikipedia of someone from a Mormon bluestocking clan (the majority of those in positions of influence among them--"bluestocking" is tongue-in-cheek: in LDS parlance, it's simply "So-and-so is of the Kimballs," or, collectively, such expressions as "...is from pioneer stock")...um, typically goes something like the following.

"Spencer W. Kimball"

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

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

(The WP article on the clan Kimball belonged to is Kimball–Snow–Woolley family.) In any case--at least in my opinion--
  1. the fact of the Pratt and Romney families' interconnectedness is easy to document (and was mentioned in the New York Times in early January 2012); yet, whereas, per wp:NEO, article titles are free to render complicated subjects in a straightforward way, they should avoid producing their own coinages that might slip into the language, simply due to the fact that we seek only to be a tertiary source (that's why the Obama family is more appropriately termed the "Family of Barack Obama" on WP; hence hyphenated forms, such as the Lee–Hamblin family, etc., while useful, perhaps should be recast in a similar manner as the Obama family has been);
  2. the assertion that interconnected clans are genealogical is simply redundant (and should be removed for that alone (yet, of course, per wp:SYNTH, patently obvious statements are not guilty of improper "synthesis");
  3. that Romney is from a political family unfortunately remains unsourced;
  4. what generation of Mormon Romney is is the type of information that people come to Wikipedia to seek the sources for and go to the Romney family article to learn about (yet is maybe "too much information" for his blp? I don't know...).
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Find a WP:RS source for them being a single entity,. It is improper for Wikipedia to make such a connection without a reliable source meeting WP:BLP standards. That is how WP:BLP operates. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

R from political family?

I'll try to source question below.

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

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

WP:SYNTH applies as do WP:BLP and WP:RS. Cheers but it does not work. Collect (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I hate SYNTH as much as the next editor, but I think you're taking it a bit far here, Collect. Maybe "Pratt-Romney" is something made up on Wikipedia, but the idea that there is a Romney family that has several politicians in it is not SYNTH, nor is a family tree where all the links are attested. If making data into a chart is SYNTH, every chart on here is SYNTH, whether it be sports standings, election results, or whatever. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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

I further changed this to just make the (newly renamed) family article a 'See also' xref. The text itself now just covers the original points #2 and #3 above. I think this works best: it doesn't place any sourcing burden for the significance of an extended political family on this article, and if the family article loses at AfD, the 'see also' can simply be removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably for the best. The two cites were really abt clan Huntsman vs. the Romneys, n.e.way: a bit afield for a blp (tho not for a family article itself, of course).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Frugality

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

Opinion. Undoubtedly. 98.118.74.184 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)theCapnVideo
"Known [by whom?]", "Romney does not seem...", "His piles of dollars seem...." -- this is pure opinion. WP:NPOVIT says, "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Not only is this quote unencyclopedic and particularly problematic for a BLP but it is also the opinion of a left-wing writer who is highly engaged in the left-right dispute. For these reasons, I believe this quote is unacceptable for inclusion here, especially as a stand-out quote. —Eustress talk 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Frank Rich is an excellent writer who makes some really good observations, including in this New York mag piece. Frank Rich is also a diehard liberal with an agenda who's willing to skew every fact in sight to align with his viewpoint, including in this New York mag piece. It's marginal as a quote to include at all and certainly shouldn't be highlighted as a side block quote (why this one and not ones half a dozen other good writers have made?). I think the only block quotes in BLPs should be ones the subject him/herself has made. Ted Kennedy is an example which highlights his three most famous/consequential speeches (RFK eulogy, rallying cry at convention, Robert Bork's America). Question is, what if anything has Romney ever said that's made a big impression? Not much ... maybe something from Faith in America speech? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, an opinion piece shouldn't be set off in a way that makes it seem authoritative. As to Romney's own words, I can't think of anything spectacular. If he does become the nominee, I'm sure his convention speech will have some good lines. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rich, Frank (January 29, 2012), Mitt Romney: Who In God's Name Is He Anyway?, New York Magazine {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitt_Romney/Archive_10&oldid=591295996"