Talk:Mitt Romney

General Rules and plan

1. Sign in, so that we know your name.
2. Organize discussion using the same organizational scheme as the article.
3. Put new discussion topics at the bottom of each section.

Archives

• /Archive1 - Through November 2006.

In-state tuition bill

Someone editing from an IP address has been reverting my recent edit on the In-state tuition section. I'm up to two reverts, so I wanted others to weigh in. According to the source article in the Boston Globe the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation (according to the Globe a non-partisan, non-profit group that did not issue an opinion on the bill) conducted a study that showed that there would be a net gain to MA taxpayers if the bill were to become law. The article includes a quote from a group that opposed the bill (thus, making it partisan in this case): "Robert Casimiro -- who heads the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform, which opposes the bill -- disputed the conclusions and said he believes that the arrival of hundreds of undocumented immigrant students would have plenty of costs for the state, both at instititions of higher education and in general. "The classes I have attended [at Massasoit Community College] are filled to capacity; they would have to open new classes, and that costs money,"" Note the words "I believe." He did not offer any evidence to challenge the conclusions of the study.

My concerns with the edits by 65.96.5.43 are as follows:

• 65.96.5.43 writes that the Mass Taxpayer Foundation "speculated" their conclusions. I disagree. They carried out a study based on several data sets. I think it is more accurate to say that they "found" or "concluded."
• 65.96.5.43 writes that the Mass Coalition for Immigrant Reform "refuted" the other group's findings. However, as noted above, Casimiro only offered a few opinions as to why he believed the study to be wrong. He did not offer any evidence or prove that the report was wrong (see definition for refute).

Thanks.--Notmyrealname 03:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Casimiro doesn't refute anything. He just disagrees. It seems the word is now off the page. It should't return as it is not the correct term.--Michael16G 02:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why not mention the disagreement over the study? Its in the same article used to source the study.--Waverider5 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, newspapers like to quote from people on every side of an issue. But this is not a newspaper article. Casimiro has a reaction to the report. His group didn't put out a detailed study challenging the findings. He just offered an opinion. It seems that the Mass Taxpayer Foundation's report was a serious piece of research based on the experiences of the nine other states that have similar laws. I think there's a qualitative issue here. More importantly, Romney didn't dispute the report.--Notmyrealname 06:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Romney did dispute the findings of the report. He belives that the legislation would cost the state 15 million, the group though it would bring 5 million to the state. The report doesn't even consider other costs beyond education (i.e. health costs and public safety costs). You could make an argument that there is a "qualitative issue" with a study that doesn't take into account the entire secenario associated with the legislation. I am not going to have that debate on this page, but it is worth noting that others disagree with the conclusions. The groups report is after all an educated guess of the real effects of the legislation. Since the study's findings are not facts, but rather opinon/analysis, its worth noting the opinion/analysis of others on the study -- especially those of groups that are mentioned in the same source.--Waverider5 02:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, Romney hadn't read the report. I'm not sure how having illegal immigrants pay the in-state tuition rate would increase health and public safety costs. But, as you say, that is a debate for another time, and anyway, there should be no original research on Wikipedia in any case. The point is that Romney put forward an estimate (presumably based on research and a studies) of a $15 million cost, and MTF released a study forecasting a $5 million gain. I think that this is fair and balanced. There is no need to put out opinions of groups that haven't done serious studies. If we wanted to go down this path we could get quotes from a zillion advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. The Casimiro's quote in the source is of a different order of quality than that of the study.Notmyrealname 05:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... interesting debate taking place on this one. Its always intersting see different perspectives on issues. Not sure its our place to discredit either the study that the group produced or the other group. Since they were both quoted in a Boston Globe article, I will gve them the benifit of the doubt and call them both credable. Its important to show that Romney's analysis is disputed (by the study), but isnt it also wise to show that the study is also disputed? Nobody really knows what the cost/gain of this plan would be since it never happened. Neither side has a crystal ball.--Cliffhanger7 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

and honorary chairman of the Commonwealth Political Action Committee.[

"He also serves as the chairman of the Republican Governors Association and honorary chairman of the Commonwealth Political Action Committee.[2]"

Does anyone care? I mean this is his pack, and so I would assume he serves as charman...

I propose, if you agree, you just remove... That's how it should always work. One person proposes, and another person seconds it, by romoving it... A third person can change it back, if they don't like it, unless you make a good argument here, to stop the 2nd person from doing it...

myclob 23:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"He also achieved prominence as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah"

Does someone ever "achieve prominence"? How does one go abotu achieving promince. Is that a sticker? It does not belong in this article. It is fluffy. If he achieved promince, he did it when he ran against Ted Kennedy. I don't think anyone really cares who runs the olympics. Sure there probably pretty cool people, but no one really "achieves prominence" from it. Take out prominince, or say that he achieved prominence by almost beating Kennedy...myclob 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Romney's work at Bain Capital and his turnarund at Bain & Company is more noteworth than his association with his PAC or the RGA at this point. Shouldnt this go in the lead section in place of the RGA and PAC references? Also, Romney never ran against John Kerry.--Michael16G 02:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should read "gained national attention." I don't think many people cared when he lost to Kennedy by 17 points, even if he had good poll numbers a few months before the election. And he didn't even run for office again for another 8 years. I had never heard of him before he became Governor, but the 2002 Olympics were an international scandal, and he keep them from going down in disgrace, so I guess it is appropriate to say that this the thing that got him noticed. I disagree with Michael16G that Bain should come before the RGA. It's a national political post, although it hasn't gone so well lately. George Bush made his money in baseball, but who cares?--Notmyrealname 18:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just read the intro over again. Should definitely mention Bain & Co. someplace here.Notmyrealname 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with this one. Intro should have his buisness expierence. He has spent more time at Bain Capital and Bain & Company than he has as governor and at the olympics combined.--Waverider5 02:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad we have some agreement. I think his buisness career deserves a sentence in the lead. Also, is Romney still the chair of the RGA? He obviously cant continue in the post since he will no longer be a sitting governor in a few weeks.--Michael16G 04:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence at the top about his buisness career:

"Romney is the former CEO of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm, and the co-founder of Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm."--Sierraonfire 01:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this belong in "education"

"Romney served for 30 months as a Mormon missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in France." myclob 23:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would add here "while other young men of his generation fought in Vietnam." patriotgamer. Also:

"He is also an Eagle Scout." does not belong under Education. myclob 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It does belong in this section because the missionary work occured during this time frame. I would leave the paragraph as is, but consider changing the title of the section from "Education" to "Early Life."--Michael16G 02:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Put this under trivia or somewhere else...

"At BCG Romney worked with recent MIT graduate and future Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[5]"

This is under business, but does not really mean anything to Romney's business career. Take it out and put it under trivia or somewhere else. myclob 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine. It fits into the time line. Its an interesing fact, and not distracting.--Michael16G 02:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with myclob. It has nothing to do with his business career. Belongs either in a trivia section or a "people he met who later became famous" section. Notmyrealname 18:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is an interesting fact but not really relevent to business. I like the idea of creating a trivia section and putting facts like this and others in it.--24.218.109.71 01:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the trivia idea but is there anything else to put in this section? We shouldn't create a trivia category for one fact. Any ideas for other trivia items?--Waverider5 02:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Netanyahu item needs some dates and other info to make any sense (wasn't Romney working as an intern?). "Recent MIT grad" doesn't make sense without a date.Notmyrealname 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone took away my triva section :( I have some more...Romney was named "Mitt" after a Chicago Bears quarterback of the same name... http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200506031216.asp myclob 22:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic style

There are portions of the article that read less like an encyclopedia and more like a promotional piece. While carefully guarding content for accuracy and NPOV by Romney supporters is fine, a review of the discussion page (here and in archive) lists numerous comments that much of the content sounds like campaign literature. Without addressing this the article risks reposting of the advertising banner reading:

"To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, this article or section may require cleanup. This article or section reads like an advertisement. Please discuss this issue on the talk page. Editing help is available. Blatant advertising can be marked for speedy deletion."

19:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is really well done. I really dont think there is anything that rises to the level of promotion. Everything is sourced, doubled sourced and triple sourced. It reads like a well written encyclopedia.

We should certianly remove any information sourced with campaign literature, but after reviewing the footnotes I dont think this is the case. There are a few offical press releases used. These are good for quotes and some info, but major facts and claims should be backed up with third party sources.

Other than that I have no compliants or concerns.--Megatropolis 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

-- it would be helpful to cite specifics and suggest (or) make changes. Otherwise we get into a silly battle of "is to" "is not".Notmyrealname 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what both and Notmyrealname have said. If someone would like help improving the article, I'm willing. Jerimee 00:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We should continue converting the links to footnotes and try to replace press releases with other sources where they are needed. Article is in good shape now, but will need to be carefully expanded when he decides to run for president.--Waverider5 01:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Per everybody's suggestions, I am working on the long, thankless task of converting the links to footnotes. The help of others is greatly appreciated.--Michael16G 15:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Romney ever serve in the armed forces?

I was surprised to read no mention of Gov. Romney serving his country in the armed forces. Is this the case, or is it left out? He seems the age that he would have qualified for the draft, or could have enlisted for active service during he Vietnam war. Any info on this subject? 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Governor Romney finished his undergraduate degree from BYU in 1971, and received his MBA in 1975. The earliest he likely matriculated at HBS would have been September 1973. In this period U.S. deployment was at record high (troop reducation as a part of Vietnamization began in 1972, and the Selective Service draft did not end until end of year '73), this should have left him eligble for the draft. 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. What's your point? Looks like he didn't get drafted.--Sierraonfire 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

i would say he is on to a possible draft dodge despite Romney's swagger and posturing photo ops with men and women who DID serve. 68.163.211.56 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no info to back up any of these claims. Saying that "Despite the fact" he graduated college, he didnt sign up for the military, doesnt actually point out any information. The information on this topic is of signifigance is his draft status, as it was mandatory to sign up for the draft. It was not maditory to sign up for the army.--Megatropolis 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, even if you registered and were eligible for the Vietnam draft for the entire period of the war, your chances of being called were still only 53% (see http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm). It is highly speculative to say that since he didn't serve he must have been a draft dodger. - Adas, January 2007

With regard to the math (above) that Governor Romney's earliest matriclulation date at HBS would have been September 1973 is just plain incorrect. A closer reading of the article shows that he simultaneously attended Harvard Law School (a 3 year program for the JD degree) and Harvard Business School (a 2 year program for an MBA). At that time, this was offered as a combined 4-year academic program by Harvard, which would place him as entering the joint JD/MBA program at Harvard in September 1971. Therefore, the claim that there are unaccounted-for years is incorrect. - BizJet 10 January 07

The continued edit war

So why is this continually added back? I have to ask the relevance of mentioning he didn't, because it seems like it's being added to make some sort of point, which isn't really thought of highly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Great grandfather's polygamy

Several editors have deleted the following addition to the trivia section: *Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, had five wives.

The editors have offered the following reasons:

• Doesn't realte to Romney's life. Should we see if southern politicians have a history of slave ownership? No, because it doesn't realte to them
• This is not relevant to Romeny's lifetime, nor is it encyclopedic
• This is for Mitt Romney trivia, not other family and history items

Now, a quick Google check for Romney Grandfather Polygamy (for instance) yields 962 hits. This fact has been reported in Slate, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the National Review, and other established media of every stripe and persuasion. Romney himself frequently jokes about the topic, as noted in the Slate article cited in the entry. As several of the articles note, it is pertinent in that Romney has taken a very public political stand defending what he terms "traditional marriage," yet his own family (a very prominent one in early LDS history), engaged in a very different tradition. This page mentions other Romney relatives, including details about the political career of his father. I hope we don't have to get to the point of citing Wikipedia policy of what is "encyclopedic" or the rules about "other pages do/do not do this so ...", but the rules argue for inclusion. In the spirit of assuming good faith, I hope that this isn't a matter of editors not wanting to include information that isn't to their liking.Notmyrealname 03:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Did Romney know this guy? When was this Miles Park Romney born? When did he die? I don't buy your argument that whatever a relative did influences Romney's views on marriage. Obviously close realtives do have a impact on people. If, say, Romney's father was a polygamist, I am sure that it would have a big impact. But since it is a great grandfather my guess is that whatever he did would have zero impact on Romney. Personally I know nothing about my great-grandfather because he died before I was born. His life has no influence on my own. It would be intersting to see the dates of Miles Park Romney's life to see if he was alive during Romney's childhood. As for the asertion that Romney's family does not engage in "traditonal marriage" I strongly disagree. This page notes that Romney has been married to his wife since 1969. He has never been divorced (as far as I can tell). Rommey has been married to one (not many) woman (not a man) for 37 years. Seems pretty "traditional" to me.--Redsox777 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I found a website with Miles Park Romney's info. He was born in 1843 and died in 1904. Not only did he die over 40 years before Mitt Romney's birth, but he actually died before Romney's father was even born.

I don't get how somebody could link Romney's political stance on gay marraige to a guy that he never had anything to do with, who died way before he was born. It doesnt seem like a very serious analysis to me.--Sierraonfire 13:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's completely irrelevant to Romney and should remain removed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.wargs.com/political/romney.html

Well, we seem to have a serious disagreement here. The above 3 editors don't think it's worth mentioning in the article (trivia section or elsewhere), yet the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Boston Globe, the National Review, among others all do. Romney himself frequently jokes that "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman." Obviously, he does not endorse polygamy, but he is acknowledging that the practice has a connection to his faith and his family history. Romney has many blood relatives as a result of this. The elder Romney was an important figure in the early LDS church. If Miles Romney had been Hitler (to borrow from Myclob) or a US president, don't you think that would bear mentioning? Again, it comes down to the fact that many major media (on the right, left, and middle) see this as appropriate. This means that this fact merits inclusion on this page. Where? Well, if not in a trivia section, then I propose either in the gay marriage section or his family section.Notmyrealname 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is what his great grandfather, a man he never met, relevant to this article? It's not about hiding anything - Mormons used to practice polygamy and this isn't controversial information - but more about relevance. We know Romney's a Mormon, so what other purpose does this information serve? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey just passing through... I don't really mind either way about this, but I do think that family history (even distant) could become relevant when someone becomes a public servant. George W. Bush is sometimes judged by the history of Prescott Bush, and recently Gustav Schwarzenegger's past has been affiliated with Arnold's political career. These, of course, are not end-all-be-all precedents and, arguably, may not even compare to this case. But (as the article indicates), Romney was very outspoken in supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment which defines marriage between one man and one woman. Perhaps his distant family history of polygamy is relevant when considered with support for this policy? --Howrealisreal 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The question remains, however, is this relevant? Prescott was turned into an issue in a rather pathetic way, while Gustav was a little more relevant. I'm not seeing where those two relate to this, nor am I seeing anything to indicate that Romney's support of FMA has any relevance to the general Mormon heritage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, whether or not the issue was pathetic or genuine is not the point. Those are subjective adjectives that shouldn't matter. The FMA becomes an issue because it attempted to divisively define marriage in a very limited sense. In actuality, where Romney's family history of polygamy comes into play, Americans have varying beliefs about the institution of marriage. It's important to note that, just like it would be important to note the difference between Dick and Mary Cheney's views on sexual orientation. I guess what I'm trying to say is that politicians are people also, and the policies they support sometimes have an interesting (and noteworthy) effects on their present or historical family members. --Howrealisreal 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The FMA is indeed an issue, and I would never advise to removing information on it. Mitt's great-grandfather's marriage habits, however, are irrelevant to it, however, which is the point. It's not important to note because it's not at all compelling or relevant at this point. I don't even buy the Dick/Mary Cheney comparison, they're simply not the same. If you can demonstrate actual relevance (and not simply pieces that mention the two), I won't protest much more, but the relevance isn't clear at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Well like I said above I don't really care either way. What this illustrates perfectly though is the fact that information relevancy is not absolute. It doesn't seem relevant to you, but it does seem to be relevant (for whatever justification) to other people. I guess I'm more of an inclusionist by nature so I threw in my two cents, but I cannot see any value in prolonging this discussion when it will obviously just remain "remove vs. include" based on subjectivity. Respectfully, --Howrealisreal 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first, not all Mormons have ancestors that practiced polygamy, so the fact that Romney does is significant. Second, our purpose is to provide information. What purpose it serves is up to the reader. Third, the fact that it is widely reported on in general articles about 1) Romney, 2) his electability, and 3) his public stances on gay marriage, show that others across the political spectrum think it is relevant. Fourth, Romney himself makes references to it in jokes in public speeches. (and to Redsox777: we're not discussing your connection to your family, we're discussing Romney's). By the way, just wanted to let you all know that I have requested assistance from an outside advocate on this discussion. Should take about a week or two for them to get to it.Notmyrealname 19:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here are three references from mainstream political sources that make note of the connection: [2], [3], [4].

And from our very own page: "Marriage is not an evolving paradigm," said Romney, "but is a fundamental and universal social institution." Yet, his own family history shows otherwise.Notmyrealname 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

None of these sources seem to mention it as anyhting other than a random sidebar, and are inconsistent in terms of its relevance to Romney anyway - one cites the gay marriage issue, another with Romney being forthcoming about his faith, another about the theoretical 2008 campaign. As an actual issue to be documented here, however, it's amazingly trivial and I still fail to see the relevance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not proposing this as an actual issue to be documented, but rather a fact to be inserted into the appropriate spot. It would have about as much space as the fact that he is an Eagle Scout or that his father was secretary for HUD under Nixon. The general bias of Wikipedia is to include more information and let readers make use of the it how they wish. Second, the Herald item is entirely about the relevance of it. Third, the fact that it is mentioned in relation to so many issues lends support to the argument that it is a relevant fact (trivial or otherwise, that really doesn't need to be resolved). "Random sidebar" could easily describe many items on Romney's page, and Wikipedia in general ;) Notmyrealname 21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The only "bias" is the insinuation that you are propagating (whether intentional or not) that Romney's great grandfather, who died 4 decades before his birth, has something to do with his actions and political stances as Governor, or his upbringing. Your proposal to put information about Mile's Park Romney's life in the "Gay Marriage" section of the “Governorship” heading or the "Early Life" heading as you have proposed would certainly accomplish this regrettable goal.--Sierraonfire 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Romney's actions as Governor with regards to gay marriage have nothing to do with whatever his great grandfather did. Any attempts to manifest a connection are not only ridiculous, but not rooted in fact or reality. You have no basis to validate these claims. Its blatant and outlandish POV. Romney's actions (married to one woman his entire adult life) do not in anyway conflict with his political views on the definition or marriage. Attempts to paint Romney as some type of hypocrite regarding his traditional definition of marriage because of the actions of a man that was dead and buried long before his time are absurd.--Sierraonfire 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, there have been a number of comparisons to the actions of other politicians (Bush and his grandfather, Schwarzenegger and his father, Cheney and his daughter). I dont think that the actions of these individuals have anything to do with the political careers of their relatives. Its is however also worth noting that the politicans in question knew all of these realtives. These are close realtives. Bush grew up with his grandfather, Schwarzenegger knew his father, Cheney raised his daughter. For those that are making these comparisons to Romney, let me repeat the facts I had previously posted about Miles Rommey: He was born in 1843 and died in 1904. Not only did he die over 40 years before Mitt Romney's birth, but he actually died before Romney's father was even born. These are not valid comparisons.--Sierraonfire 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The point was that family members (alive or dead) are often considered relevant to public servants. I specifically noted "these, of course, are not end-all-be-all precedents and, arguably, may not even compare to this case" for the comparisons I made. --Howrealisreal 02:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a fairly decent concensus that this isn't relevant to an encyclopedia article. I tend to agree. What we have here is a concerted effort by a single user (Notmyrealname) to keep it in. By the opposition is pretty clear. It should be REMOVED.--Velvet elvis81 06:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. I have contributed to this page for quite some time, and back up my edits with proper sources. After having my edits reverted I began a discussion here. My proposal has been seconded by another editor. I have given carefully reasoned and sourced responses to the objections raised here. I think that this discussion would benefit from the input of other wikipedia editors that have not been involved with this page. I will submit a formal request for comment shortly and I will also propose some text that I think appropriately frames this issue.--Notmyrealname 17:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. I was not claiming you were acting in bad faith--merely that this was one user vs. three or four. I did not notice the other user's agreement with you. I think outside comment is a good idea. That said, I've had nothing to do with this page as far as creation/editing, so count me one outsider vote against putting it in.--Velvet elvis81 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was more concerned with the tone of the other editors. Here's another article that makes a very good case as to why the issue is relevant. [5]. This is in addition to the Herald link cited above. These are just the ones that make the link between these two issues. As I have noted before, Miles Romney's polygamy is quite frequently mentioned in the mainstream press regarding his electability. Miles had to flee the US to Mexico, where Mitt Romney's father, George, was born.Notmyrealname 00:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not related to any part of Romney's life, public or private. It has no place in an encyclopedia entry and should not be included on this page at this time. If Romney's political foes make this an issue in the 2008 election, then an argument could be made that the controvesy would have a place in the 2008 presidential section.--Megatropolis 18:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems interesting to me, and I could see it being included -- but not under the Gay Rights section. Perhaps it would fit better under his early life or something like that. What a man did before 1904 should not be implicated in the political decisions of his descendants -- but it does strike me as a cool thing to know, and as previously mentioned Wikipedia has a bias towards inclusion. So it makes sense to include it.

Trivia section

I deleted the "trivia" section in order to make the article conform with the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. If any of the information in that section is not trivia, please add it to the appropriate section. Fagles 15:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites

After noticing that Students Against Mitt was removed as "inappropriate", I just removed all these unofficial, pro-Romney sites (see below). I may be wrong, but they appear to violate WP:EL, as well as WP:NPOV#Undue weight. schi ^talk 23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Romney Sites - National

• Americans for Mitt
• Elect Romney in 2008
• Run Mitt Run
• Romney by Topic
• Vote Mitt Romney

Romney Sites - By State

• Iowans for Romney
• Massachusetts for Mitt
• Ohioans for Mitt
• Oregonians for Mitt
• Texans for Mitt

Romney Sites - By Organization

• Catholics for Romney
• Evangelicals for Mitt
• Students for Romney in 2008

I would not have removed students against Mitt. I run myclob.pbwiki.com. I am pro-Romney but I do not think myclob.pbwiki.com is... It is a Mitt Romney encyclopedia, with direct quotes from him on every topic. I would invite anti-romney people to help me edit it. But quotes are organized by topic, which are organized alphabetically. I have every Romney press release, and this site may become more important, once Romney's governor site goes away... I imagine patrick devall will not keep Romney press releases around on the mass governor servers...It is not pro-Romney, because it has direct indisputable quotes... tell me what you think of the site, and if you don't think you could link to it now, tell me what you think I could do to make it acceptable...myclob 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No one has responded yet... I would like to add this link, if that is ok: http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Quotes it is not pro-romney or anti- romney, it is just ROmney... Direct quotes organized by topic... pretty boring, but important if you want to learn more than just a little bit about him...myclob

Great point about the Massachusett's Governor's web site changing soon. This is a significant month for thoroughly reviewing it for information. - Yellowdesk 06:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Myclob, just FYI in case you didn't know, per WP:EL, you're strongly recommended against linking to a site that you own or maintain - but you are encouraged to discuss it on the talk page, as we're doing here. My initial appraisal of your site is that it doesn't seem very neutral. I see how it may be helpful to have access to an archive of Romney's press releases, but the site's explanation makes it seem like the purpose of the site is to function as a discussion forum, and that it is definitely pro-Romney ("I think if we organize Mitt Romney data in such a way that it promotes order, that it will lead to one logical conclusion: he should be our next president.") the /Quotes page I'm not crazy about either - while it may be true that they are simply direct quotes, they are still selected, and may have been selected in a manner that may not be NPOV.

The proposed links seem like they may run counter to the EL guideline recommendation to link to sites that contain neutral material (although wording on this and related clauses is under dispute on the guideline talk page); and they also may fall under "Links normally to be avoided" #12 (wikis - substantial number of editors?) and #13 (direct/symmetric relations, e.g. unofficial discussion forums). I'm disposed towards not including the link for now, especially considering that (for now) we have access to the governor's office website containing his press releases. schi ^talk 07:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! You are an expert at this stuff! I want my website to be neutral, but no one will link to you if you are neutral...I would let an anti-Romney person edit it with me... If Romney's press releases go away, maybe I will have to create a seperate webspage for them all...Ah, man, maybe I should do it now...myclob

http://romney-press-releases.blogspot.com/

I just made this site, but want to get your approval before I waste too much time... I took of my profile, so people cant get to my other blogs... I think this is very balanced... Please tell me what you think...myclob

If you have taken all of the Romney press releases and copied them to your site, that's a tremendus resource. I assume they will all go away with the new governor in January, at the mass.gov site. Care to take on any other miscellaneous info. from the mass.gove site? -- Yellowdesk 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How much more work needs to be done, until we can re-nominate this...

...Barak Obama's article is featured, and I don't see that it is better than this article...myclob 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I presume you're aiming for a Featured article, but you might as well eventually seek a review for the status of "Good Article" as a way-station toward "Featured."

But first, fully responding to the existing peer review is a next step. (For example, I haven't converted any web links to foot notes in more than a month).
See Wikipedia:What is a featured article. In-line citations are the biggest technical step.

Less technically, one of the requirements is not having editors that discourage evaluators (who are volunteers, just like any other editor), and that are willing to take advice, and editors that willing to allow the article to change in light of the evaluations recieved. Two other evaluators decided not to get involved in the peer review, after one Mitt Romney status-quo-defender, Michael16G, basically told the first evaluator to keep her opinions to herself. (I think it is no coincidence that that editor, Michael16G, has fewer than 35 edits that are not related to Romney over the past year; there are more than five other editors that have edit histories that show they only edit the Romney page. Partisan is a reasonable description for single issue editors.) You can see the peer review here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Mitt Romney.

You can bet that a Featured Article review will be a good bit more thorough than the "peer review." As I have said in other places, there are a lot of actions of Romney that do not get a balanced explanation, as Romney not only had proposed many things (rhetoric) that the legislature declined to take up, and the reasons for not taking them up, or for over-riding a veto are unexplained in the article, but further, the article fails to comprehend that any bill passed and signed into law is a joint effort between Romney and the legislature and not all Romney's. Furthermore, Romney, as head of a state is responsible for numerous actions, decisions, personnel, nominations and the like that are un-remarked upon a balanced and encyclopedic manner in the article. It could be that there needs to be an article entitled "Mitt Romney Governorship" to handle the details, similar to Arnold_Schwarzenegger's sub-article Political_career_of_Arnold_Schwarzenegger, or perhaps something like Bill Clinton's sub-article: Clinton_Administration.

In relation to the Obama article, it fails to be a comparable article to the Mitt Romney article, in that the life of Obama has no occasion where he has actually been in charge of something, so there's nothing to write about for Obama but his rhetoric and his personal life history; this is not the case for Romney, and I think the Clinton or Schwarzenegger examples are what you should be aiming for, with the implication that some expanded sub-articles may be necessary to do the topic justice, and earn "Featured Article" status. - Yellowdesk 06:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Updating links...

I am trying to update the links so they conform with wiki style sheets, and am having problems with this link...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/02/23/romneys_stance_on_civil_unions_draws_fire/?page=2

The link comes after this statement:

Romney told the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts (a Republican gay-rights group) that he did not support same-sex marriage or civil unions, but would fight discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The link has nothing to do with 2002, Log Cabin Republicans, or the "fight discrimination against gays and lesbians"

The link should be to page 1 of that story, here, which says: "Yesterday the Log Cabin Republicans sharply rebuked the Massachusetts governor, saying his remarks indicate he is backsliding on his 2002 campaign commitment to support some benefits for gay couples." I'll fix it now. schi ^talk 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thinks... I don't like linking to the Boston Globe, because if you visit there site more than a few times, they will block you unless you pay them...myclob 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, access is free. You just have to sign up for an account, but you can give any real or imagined info you'd like (just as you can with a Wikipedia account).Notmyrealname 19:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

why doesn't #78 link?

1. 78 does not link to this article:

Rimer, Sara. "Perfect Anti-Kennedy' Opposes the Senator." The New York Times, October 25, 1994.myclob 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably because, since it's from 1994, it doesn't have free online access at NYTimes.com. schi ^talk 20:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Research resources

Some cites to sources/articles that should be incorporated into the article later: (feel free to add your own too schi ^talk 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

• Helman, Scott (2005-11-18). "Legislative victories elusive for Romney". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2006-12-12.
• Johnson, Glen (2006-01-19). "Romney speaks to two audiences in final State of the State speech". Boston Globe. Associated Press. Retrieved 2006-12-12.
• Allen, Mike (2006-12-04). "Can a Mormon be President?". Time. Retrieved 2006-12-12.
• Johnson, Glen (2006-11-21). "Romney Forges On, Heedless of GOP Losses". Washington Post. Associated Press. Retrieved 2006-12-12.
• Barrett, Jennifer (2006-06-07). "'Person of Faith'". Newsweek. Retrieved 2006-12-12.
• Shulman, Ken (2002-10-11). "A Man and a Woman". Newsweek. Retrieved 2006-12-12.
• http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html Smithsonian Institute's Standard Response about Mormonism Soteriology 16:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Morris, Linda (2005-07-21). "'Academic falls foul of Mormons'". The Sydney Morning Herald. {{cite news}}: Text "http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/academic-falls-foul-of-mormons/2005/07/20/1121539033179.html" ignored (help)Soteriology 16:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Reads like campaign literature

This article reads like campaign literature. Tuviya 19:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Any suggestions on how to fix it? schi ^talk 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The main issue I have is that it is FAR too long, and that it explores basically anything that has happened under his tenure as being done by his hand. It'd be more helpful if it was the size of other Governor-related articles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Taft), and if it had a well defined criticisms section, rather than a few criticisms peppered throughout and quickly rebuffed. Tuviya 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest limiting the images. These all seem like highly polished campaign photos straight out of a marketing brochure. -ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Bob Taft? Are you kidding? I have never heard of Bob Taft. Bob Taft is not running for president of the most powerful country on the planet in 2008. Bob Taft is never interviewed by national media. Bob Taft is not as important as Mitt Romney, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Barak Obama. Democrats would like it if Mitt Romney, Rudy, and John McCain's sites were all the size of Bob Taft's and Republicans would like it if Hillary's and Barak's pages were the size of Tob Baft's, but lets be real! myclob 14:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure why you're implying that I'm a Democrat - I am not. Tuviya 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm going to try very hard not to call you an idiot. I did not say that you were a Democrat. I said, "Democrats would like it if Mitt Romney, Rudy, and John McCain's sites were all the size of Bob Taft's and Republicans would like it if Hillary's and Barak's pages were the size of Tob Baft's, but lets be real!" I said BOTH sides would want to trim their apponents article to the size of Bob Taft's. I'm not going to speculate why you don't like Romney. I'm not going to say that you don't like him because he is Mormon, and that you like Bob Taft because he is Methodist. I don't care why you want his article to be the same size as Bob Taft's. But it is obvious that it should be more the size of the other candidates that I mentioned.myclob 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
          • You need to try harder. Wikipedia demands civility from editors, and you are not displaying it. Furthermore, I never said you 'said' I was a Democrat - my word was imply, and the implication is surely there. Please try to maintain a cool head, or find another place to deliver diatribes like this. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place. And speculating on my religion (I am no form of Christian) is completely outside of the usual practice of assuming good faith. You are walking a fine line on several policies - be more careful. Tuviya 15:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about Bob Taft, but perhaps this article should be more in line with the McCain and Clinton articles you link to. Ie, have a "political views" section, followed by a "Controversies" section. Not the "Here are the great things Romney did while Governor" section we seem to have here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are from his offical website. They are free images and more than appropriate for this page. The pages does not sound like campagn literature. It is sourced, valid and balanced. It is a long article because he is a potential presidential candiate, not just a regular governor.--Michael16G 03:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not these "official" images are appropriate, they don't need to be super-sized. IMO, the very fact that they're from his official website presents problems, since they probably are copyright protected, and free alternatives are quite easy to obtain. (not to mention that if they're part of his official site's image/pr, they're staged & cropped in a certain way to communicate a certain image, etc). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• The pictures say 'Per gov office: All mages on web page have "been released into the public domain"' - and yet the page they come from does not have that note. We need to have proof of this, beyond the fact that a staffer of his might have uploaded them, don't we? Tuviya 18:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Michael, simply saying that I'm wrong about the tone of this article doesn't change my opinion, and I'm not the only one who has said something. As for the images, ZimZalaBim is perfectly correct. If they are from his official website, they are almost certainly copyrighted, and so must be removed. Tuviya 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By asserting that the page reads like campaign literature because it is "too long" doesn't change my opinion. You have not advanced any evidence to back up your theory. As for the pictures, if the copyrights have been released by his office then they are free images and are suitable for wikipedia. If you think there is a conflict you should take some initiative and contact the presumed copyright holder (in this case, Romney's photo office) rather than making guesses.--Michael16G 13:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage interview

The quote ("Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians") the article attributes to an interview, with a link to this National Review article, does not seem to be an interview. The National Review article sounds to me like he's giving a speech. I tried to Google around and found a few other articles/blog posts that also called it an interview, but I also found this Christian Coalition page that said it was from his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I searched the Senate Judiciary Committee's website and could only find this testimony by Romney. Any ideas? I could be wrong, it might have been an interview, but it certainly didn't sound like one to me. I suppose it isn't super-critical that we properly characterize the source of the quote, but I thought would provide an explanation for why I removed the "interview" characterization. schi ^talk 01:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Looks like the author took the quote from testimony. Nice catch.--Michael16G 03:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

Wow - a whole lot of apparent single purpose accounts have sprung up editing here:

• Waverider5 (talk · contribs)
• Ruanjiaqi (talk · contribs)
• Sierraonfire (talk · contribs)
• Michael16G (talk · contribs)
• Cliffhanger7 (talk · contribs)
• Redsox777 (talk · contribs)
• ...

Its like this guy is running for President or something.... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Curious. I am, of course, going to assume good faith - I certainly hope this isn't an issue like that congressional staffer problem we had, though. Tuviya 04:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll find some of those single-purpose accounts are remarkably quick in defending the article from "outsider" views, whether editors of the article, or reviewers. See for example the first peer review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Mitt Romney. -- Yellowdesk 04:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

2002 Olympics

This section needs a little trimming and toning down of language. Right now it reads like a campaign brochure. Do we really need to quote people saying they "needed a white knight?" Do we need to quote three people who say he did a great job? Does Pres. Bush saying you did "a heckuva job" (sorry, "fabulous") really sound like a compliment these days? Besides, what else are these people going to say? Let's get rid of language like "the event needed new leadership and they launched a search." Let's also strike language like "He was charged with restoring faith in the beleaguered event, and rescuing the Olympics from failure." I've started with some obvious trims. Let's just stick with the basics here. This isn't the place to tell a story with drama.Notmyrealname 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Mass deletions" (sigh)

Ok, one of the SPAs just reverted my attempts to trim and remove some of the puffery from this article, claiming they were "mass deletions" [6]. (Sigh). Ok, so let's discuss my recent good faith edits:

1. [7] We don't need to detail a company's financial performance here when it has its own article, and this makes a tacit claim that Romney is personally responsible for its success, which is a POV assertion, not a prooven fact.
2. [8] {{npov}} tag is appropriate because the neutrality of this article is clearly in dispute.
3. [9] Claiming the Games were "on the verge of disaster" is POV puffery, with the only goal of setting up Romney as some kind of savior. Let's just stick to the fact, and keep the commentary for the campaign trail. (and I don't even think the "white knight" reference is appropriate, but kept that in for now)
4. [10] Lengthy discussion of the MA health care situation is not appropriate in a biographical article about Romney. Hey, look! There's actually an article for that already! Massachusetts 2006 Health Reform Statute.
5. [11] How can you dispute that these two white lines should be deleted and that the claim that Romney supports charter schools needs to be cited?

Please explain why these edits make the article worse. This is an encyclopedia, and this article should provide biographical content about the subject. Please stop trying to block attempts to ensure neutrality in its treatment of the subject. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've reverted to your version, and encourage SierraOnFire to join in the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Education Initiatives

This section needs to be revamped. More than half of the section is related to initiatives that he proposed but that were never passed, and more space is taken up with his opinions about national policies that he can do nothing about. The relevant info are the metrics that show performance of education in the state during his tenure. Is it necessary to have a picture of him touting the $100 laptop proposal if nothing ever came of it? The casual reader would likely get the impression that this is something that actually happened.Notmyrealname 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status of images

So, looking at the actual copyright notice from the mass.gov website (item 3) [12], I question the claim that these images are meant to be in the public domain. That page seems to be referring to government documents and text of government proceedings that are part of the public record (it doesn't use the terms "public domain" like the image uploader claims (see, for example Image:RomneyFreeRally.jpg). In fact, the site's notice goes on to state that "With respect to material copyrighted by the Commonwealth, including the design, layout, and other features of Mass.Gov, the Commonwealth forbids any copying or use other than "fair use" under the Copyright Act." I don't think we have a fair use claim here since free images are easily obtained (anyone can take a free photo of him at a public event). I'm concerned as to the true copyright status of these images. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The status may not be that dire. The mass.gov terms of use page does go on to say the following:

"Fair use" includes activities such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research, and other related activities

A few references: Wikipedia:Fair_use, and the non-policy essay Wikipedia:Publicity_photos. See the general Wikipedia:Copyright_issues. And if you or someone were to attempt to obtain permission, here's what to ask for: Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. It is quite possible that the photos are works of a Massachusetts employee, and are considered a public document under state law, and are freely available. - Yellowdesk 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Well, perhaps we should change the copyright tags on the images though, because I think the claim that the copyright holder has placed them into public domain is inaccurate. If anything, they simply fall into a fair use as government documents kind of scenario. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Best thing to do it to check with romney's office. Manytimes they release the copyrights to the images once they are posted on their public websites. Verbal or written permisson would suffice.--192.80.65.234 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There was an issue about this a while back. The copyright status was unclear so I called the Romney's office (phone number was on his website). I talked to a person that told me that all of the photos on their site were released into the public domain for unrestricted use. Should we have somebody else call to verify their status?--Redsox777 21:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ & WP:ERP - I'm not sure verbal assurance from a staffer is sufficient here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If they release the copyright to the images, what is the issue?--Michael16G 13:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Crime stats

What should we do with the crime section? Tuviya says that it was attributing things to Romney that couldn't be backed up. This is a reasonable criticism. However, politicians usually claim credit when crime goes down and get blamed when it goes up. I think it's reasonable to assign some responsability to the person at the top when they've been in office for several years.

This is how the crime section was previously worded:

• Crime: According to statistics released by the Department of Justice the overall crime rate in Massachusetts has decreased 9% between 2002 (the year before Romney was elected) and 2005. Rates of violent crime, crimes against property, rape, aggravated assault, larceny and vehicle theft have all dropped during the same period while the murder rate has remained the same.[35] According to a review of data from the Department of Justice conducted by the Boston Phoenix, arrest rates for violent crimes have plummeted during Romney's tenure. The arrest rates for rape for the three years before Romney took office was 26%. This has fallen to 14% since then. During the same years, the arrest rate also declined sharply for the other three categories of major violent crime: the arrest rate for murder dropped from 48 percent to 26 percent; robbery, from 23 percent to 11 percent; and aggravated assault, from 48 percent to 29 percent.[36]. In July 2006 Romney offered the assistance of his state police force to municipalities dealing with increased crime rates. Romney's offers were rejected by local officials. Officials from Boston Police unions complained that "if state aid hadn't been cut in recent years, then the city's police force might be staffed adequately to handle the crime surge." [37]

I agree that the section could be improved, notably by shortening it, and giving some context (e.g. comparing MA crime stats to US crime stats). However, I think it does give a useful comparison by showing the difference between the declining crime rate and the much farther drop in arrest rates. This should be reworded, however, to make clear that they show different things. I'm afraid we're throwing the good out with the bad.Notmyrealname 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I already trimmed some of it. Its not a question whether you or I think it is reasonable that the person "at the top" takes some credit - we need verifiable sources saying that due to Romney crime dropped in that period. We shouldn't be in the business of conjecture. On a broader note, this article shouldn't be about everything that happened during Romney's tenure, but about Romney. What he did, not just what happened around him. My $0.02. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with ZimZalaBim - but if Romney has notably taken credit for events (like a drop in crime rate, etc.) that happened during his tenure, it may be reasonable to include that he has claimed credit for it. I'm not sure if that's been the case, but just wanted to put it out there. schi ^talk 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, if there is a reliable source indicating that Romney has taken credit or the drop in crime, we can note that he has taken such credit. But we shouldn't give credit simply due to correlations. -ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty. I believe what happened a while back was that one editor had put in the drop in crime stats, and I had supplemented it with the drop in arrest rates from the Phoenix. I fully agree that this whole page needs to be chopped down substantially, and this section is no exception. Just wanted to have folks talk this through.Notmyrealname 21:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the section looks fine now, FWIW. Tuviya 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Legislature's acts

There are a few instances in the article where it says Romney signed such-and-such legislation -- I am not intimately familiar with how things are done in the Massachusetts legislature, but my initial reaction (which appears to be confirmed by this article) is that it is routine for the governor to sign legislation that is passed by the legislature. I'm sure the implication is that the governor was in some way responsible - or at least more so than the legislature - for these laws, but, for example in the "Military and veterans' benefits" section, it's not at all clear that he was. Can someone clarify? Generally, and in line with the discussion in the above section, I'd like to see some clearer distinctions between what Romney has specifically done, as opposed to what happened in the legislature during his term. schi ^talk 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Its is actually not routine for romney to sign something. He is a repub. His state is heavily democratic. They probably dont agree on much and he probably vetos bills (unlike pres Bush who had both a republican house and senate. He didnt veto much). Also, The veterans benifits section says that he "filed" the bill. This means that he worte it and worked with the legislature on it. He was a part of the development of the legislation. The section notes that he worked with the legislature so it looks good.--216.236.252.234 20:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see how it's not routine - but I think it should be clarified that his signature is approving the legislature's bill, and not that he's necessarily responsible for it. And regarding the veterans section, I was referring to the first sentence ("On September 23, 2004, Romney signed legislation prohibiting employment discrimination against members of the military, including those serving in the National Guard and Reserve. The bill also created a “Commission on Veterans’ Employment Opportunities”.") not the Welcome Home bill. schi ^talk 21:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue of Romney toughing it out in a Democratic state has been raised before, and I just wanted to add that it should not be used as a wholesale excuse to include stuff that he wasn't able to pass. It is not unusual for states to have a governor of one party and a legislature of another. MA itself has had many years of this scenario. The governor should still be judged on what they were able to accomplish through negotiation and persuasion. That said, we should be very precise in terms of what we share of credit we give to Romney for any particular piece of legislation. The health care reform itself seems to have come out of a long negotiating process from both the legislature and the executive branch and the mention here should reflect that.Notmyrealname 21:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The things he wanted to do but had no chance of passing in the legislature belong more in a "political views" section than a "governorship" section. By the same token, the article should not give Romney too much credit for legislation passed with a supermajority (since the legislature could pass it regardless of his opinions, he was irrelevant to its passage). Fagles 02:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It says he wrote and filed the bill. That means he authored the legisaltion. Its not the "legislature's work." They worked togeather on the issue of veterans benifits.--Redsox777 21:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah but how many amendments were there, and what political effort and horsetrading or rhetoric was involved in getting the legilature's agreement. They were not supine in the process. This is the perspective that the article is lacking: that it is always necessary for the Governor to collaborate with the legislature if his rhetoric is to be turned into law, regulation and policy. As for 216.236.252.234's claim that it was not routine for Romney to sign an enacted bill, I would call that an unsourced and speculative statement awaiting a citation to an analysis of enacted bills not signed. -- Yellowdesk 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The section mentions that Romney and the legislature worked together. If you think that it is important to expand on "working together" then find to info to prove the "horsetrading". The sources provided do not mention Romney sending the legislation back to the legislature with any amendments, so you can cross that off the list.--Redsox777 02:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

On that topic, every veto overide qualifies as admendments rejected by the legislature. Several budgets have this sort of back and forth, and the Health Care reform law is notable too in this regard too, where the legislature indicated Romney's vetos were not acceptable. Mitt_Romney#Health_care. -- 24.63.7.9 04:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Abortion chronology

In this diff, anonymous IP address 216.236.252.234 reverted my changes, claiming that my edit disrupted chronology. I'm going to revert, as my changes were not limited to chronological order and I would rather not see them lost without discussing their merits. As for chronology, this is how my edit presented the events:

1. Summary of current positions
2. Romney's position in 1994
3. Romney's position in 2002
4. Romney's position in 2005 and his own explanation of how his views have changed since 2002.

I feel this is better than the revert. Thoughts? schi ^talk 21:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this is a better format. Keep in mind we are in the "Governorship" section. Governorship goes first, obviously. Your edits have scrambled the order of his progession on the issue. You have mixed up the time line and format that has been used in other sections. You also deleted his explanation for his "evolution" on the issue. I dont see the wisdom behind this reorganization.--Redsox777 21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point Redsox777, but he hasn't done anything on abortion during his governorship. He has taken some positions and made some moves on other things that he claims relate to abortion. I think putting it in chronological order makes more sense for the readerNotmyrealname 21:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - I see your point about focusing on what he's done in his governorship (that's why I wanted to focus on his current positions first). Personally, I think it's more straightforward and intuitive to read each section chronologically, but that may be a difference in opinion. How about in the intro paragraph we discuss his substantive actions regarding abortion as governor, and then go back and do the chronological tracing of his "evolution". Also, I think my edit preserved plenty of his explanation for his "evolution" on the issue - I cut out the whole anecdote about turning to his chief of staff and saying, "Beth..." - but still retained a short sum-up (following discussion with stem cell experts at Harvard) with ref so readers could read the whole story. In a concise encylopedia article, we don't need to keep anecdotes like that in place. schi ^talk 22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a "political views" section in addition to the "governorship" section. Most of the abortion stuff could be moved to the new "veiws" section, since not much has happened regarding abortion during his term. There is already a section on stem cell research. This would mirror the organization of other politician articles such as John McCain. In the new "political views" section on abortion, I think Schi's organizition will make the most sense: summary of current views, then history of views in chronological order. Fagles 02:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The current organization is good. It plots a chronological course of his stance. Making a "political views" section creates a disconnect between views and actions. His actions regarding abortion as Governor, the moratrium on abortion legislation and the veto of the emergency contraception bill, and his political views, his views on Roe v. Wade, would have to be seperated. It doesn't make much sense to do this. All the info is relevent to his views as a politican and governor. I dont think it needs to be changed.--Michael16G 00:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Business fluff

An anonymous IP address 216.236.252.234 just reverted my edits to the business section.

My edits read as follows: After graduating from Harvard Business School, Romney went to work for the Boston Consulting Group, where he had been a summer intern in 1974. From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., a Boston-based management consulting firm. In 1984, Romney left the company to co-found Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm.

In 1990 Romney returned to Bain & Company as CEO to manage the company through a period of financial turmoil.

Following his year at Bain & Company, Romney returned to Bain Capital.

The revised edits read like this:

After graduating from Harvard Business School, Romney went to work for the Boston Consulting Group, where he had been a summer intern in 1974. From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., a Boston-based management consulting firm. In 1984, Romney left the company to co-found Bain Capital, which quickly became a highly successful private equity investment firm.

In 1990 Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.

Following his year at Bain & Company, Romney returned to Bain Capital. During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital's average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent. During Romney's tenure, the firm founded, acquired or invested in hundreds of companies including Staples Inc., Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Brookstone, Domino's, Sealy and The Sports Authority. [13] Romney left Bain Capital in 1998 to head the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games.

The revised edits are very close in language to the magazine articles that they cite, and are not written in a NPOV encyclopedic style. I tried to remove value-laden language like "quickly became a highly successful private equity firm." Why not just call it a private equity firm? Why say that he was asked to return to lead it out of financial collapse? This is a little too much color. What the heck is an "annual internalized rate of return" and why should we care? How do we know that this can be attributed to Romney? Maybe the market was booming in general? Maybe he had really good employees? People can read the company links to find out more. Let's stick with where he worked and when. I'll leave it to others to change this.Notmyrealname 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that 216.236.252.234 has a history of being blocked for vandalism. Notmyrealname 21:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

The fluff language needs to go, but the preformance of the buisness is relevent to his business career. The results of a company that he founded and lead should be mentioned in his business section. The language in the recent edit provides a statement of fact, not an endorsement of his leaderhsip as you imply. You also removed the info about the situation at Bain and Company and its reveral of fortune. This should also be noted because it reflects the work that he did there. Its encyclopedic fact and info about his time in business.--Redsox777 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Khatami Controversy

Now that some time has passed, I think we need to review whether this belongs on this page. If we keep it, do we really need to devote so much space? In the end, Romney denied the guy a police escort. Who cares? Does this really belong on Romney's bio page?Notmyrealname 03:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Its just as important as the "tar baby" and "undocumented workers" controversies. We should either keep all or delete them all.--Michael16G 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm for deleting all of these as trivial.Notmyrealname 17:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think you should delete taxes or housing. The Boston Globe article from today said that that will be Romney's major legacy, while taxes are probably one of the most important issues to be considered for any governor or us presidential candidate. myclob 19:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Romney Governorship as a Separate Article

I believe this article is the longest US gubernatorial article on wikipedia. The article will get longer as the Presidential campaign continues.
Isn't it time to push the governor's administration and political detail into a separate article, relieving the Biography of items that are not biography at all?
I propose the followinging titles, with the aim that others might come up with better titles. Add yours below with signature: ~~~ -- Yellowdesk 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would much prefer we just cull the existing article to make it manageable rather than devoting an entirely new article to his administration. Tuviya 05:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My view is that the article on the Romney Administration already exists, in plain sight, and pushing it from the too-long Biography page, into its own page would allow a terse summary of five to ten paragraphs in the Biography. That terse summary is where the new writing would have to occur. Yellowdesk 15:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we make his shorter, or the other candidates longer? Einstein said things should be made as simple as possible but not more simple. What is more important that having an un-biased place for information on our presidential candidates? We should make it un-biased. We should create sub-sections, if information should go somewhere else. But lets not delete information, and make people go to either a pro-romney, or an anti-romney site. I would rather make McCain's and the other sites bigger than delete this info. Sure fix up this info, make it NPOV and all that, but lets let people go somewhere else good (within the wiki world) if they want additional infomyclob 20:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This suggestion would require perhaps fifty editors to expand twenty other articles. Not likely to occur soon. See: United States presidential election, 2008 -- Yellowdesk 07:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Intersting suggestion. The article is in fine shape and should not be shortend for the sake of being shortend. That being said I expect this article to grow if he runs for president. It may get really long at that point. I think we should leave it as is, and make the call on this one if it gets too long once the presidential section grows.--Michael16G 13:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Presidential Articles are a good example and model. There is a lot of non-biographical information that is conveyed in articles that are not formally part of the BIO, but linked to the bio. Non-biography policy information, for example. Take a look at Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. It is interesting how many sub articles there are to each of these biography pages, This allows the particular topic to be expanded upon without making the biography page huge. It improves the biography page in an encyclopedic manner, and saves information (and work referencing it) from being needlessly deleted, and it makes it possible for the prose of the biography to be compelling, by pushing the detail elsewhere. I should mention one of the qualifications for a featured article is brilliant prose and article stability. This would help in both areas, by pushing some of the detail and fights off of the biography page.
Here's a list of those sections that cite articles for fuller detail. -- Yellowdesk 00:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Section and related articles in two presidential biographies.

Bill Clinton#Presidency, 1993-2001

Main article: Clinton Administration

Bill Clinton#The Lewinsky scandal

Main article: Lewinsky scandal

Bill Clinton#Impeachment trial in the Senate

Main article: Impeachment of Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton#Administrative controversy

Main article: White House personnel file controversy

Main article: White House travel office controversy

Bill Clinton#Campaign finance and the pardon controversy

Main article: 1996 United States campaign finance controversy

Main article: Bill Clinton pardons controversy

Bill Clinton#Willey and Broaddrick allegations

Main article: Kathleen Willey

Main article: Juanita Broaddrick

Bill Clinton#Humanitarian work

Main article: William J. Clinton Foundation

Bill Clinton#See also

Further information: [[:Category:Bill Clinton]]

---

George W. Bush#Presidency

Main article: George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States

Main article: George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States

George W. Bush#Domestic policy

Main article: Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration

George W. Bush#Hurricane Katrina

Main article: Political effects of Hurricane Katrina

George W. Bush#Foreign policy

Main article: Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration

George W. Bush#North Korea

Main article: United States-North Korea relations

George W. Bush#Afghanistan

Main article: 2001 war in Afghanistan

George W. Bush#Iraq

Main article: Iraq War

George W. Bush#Cabinet

Main article: George W. Bush administration

George W. Bush#Criticism and public perception

Main articles: Criticism of George W. Bush and Public perception of George W. Bush

See also: Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush

George W. Bush#Legislation and programs

Main article: George W. Bush legislation and programs

I wouldn't put the Romney administration in the catagorey of the Bush and Clinton administration. It doesn't need to be seperated from Romney's page. The Governorship section shouldn't expand since he will be leaving office so there shouldn't be a need to break it off from his bio.--Redsox777 02:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This view presumes there will be no assessment or analysis of the Romney administration during the next two years, or further research on the analysis and articles that already are ublished. A view of history as ossification. In any case, the presidential examples above are simply to show how it is done. Bear in mind that this Romney article is already the longest Governor's article on Wikipedia, and longer than a number of Presidential articles, because detailed text is not pushed into sub-articles. -- Yellowdesk 09:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

An "assesment" or an "analysis" of Romney's term is irrelevent for this page. The inclusion of opinionated reviews of Romney's term in office violate wiki guidelines and shouldn't be included. For the most part the governorship wil be finished once he leaves office. If some additional facts emerge, they should be added, but there is no reason at this point to believe that there will be a signifigant ammount. There isnt a compelling reason to chop off this part of the page.--Sierraonfire 04:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, a magazine or newspaper article cited in wikipedia is a fine example of a published assessment or analysis of facts, and one about Romney may well be relevant to this page. For Romney Governorship and Administration, there will continue to be unearthing of facts, found in public documents, and assessments made of those documents and facts.
Here is a recent front page analysis and assessment that has been cited already on the Mitt Romney page:
* By Brian C. Mooney. Romney left Mass. on 212 days in '06: Visited 35 states; built a national network Boston Globe (December 24, 2006).
There will be continuing and similar appraisals as the Romney presidential candidacy moves forward, and assessment of the Romney team's planning and managment capabilities, as a campaigners, and as an administration. Analysis by members of the national media, local media and academics. All of this will unearth new information, and assessments of that information, and will be citable on wikipedia. Hence the section is eminently capable of growing in the future, instead of freezing. The Governorship section should be set into a sub-article to make way for new summaries as the life of Romney continues. -- Yellowdesk 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Still looking for several good arguments (since, so far, there have been none) for not going ahead and pushing the not-so-biographical and long section on the Governorship and Administration of Mitt Romney into a sub-article, to be repaced by a succinct shorter summary that links to a detailed sub-article. -- Yellowdesk 07:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Rougher07 has made the change here, creating the new page at Governorship of Mitt Romney and here taking the section out of the Mitt Romney page. -- Yellowdesk 01:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Suggested Sub-Article Titles

• Mitt Romney Massachusetts Administration (Yellowdesk)
• Mitt Romney Administration as Massachusetts Governor (Yellowdesk)
• Mitt Romney Administration, Massachusetts (Yellowdesk)
• Mitt Romney, Gubernatorial Administration, Massachsetts (Yellowdesk)
• Mitt Romney, Governorship of Massachusetts (Yellowdesk)

---

MBA / JD joint degree

..."In 1975, Romney completed the degree of M.B.A., graduating in the top 5 percent of his class from Harvard Business School. He was named a Baker Scholar.[5] In 1975 he also received his J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School"

What actually happened was Romney was admitted to a Harvard Program that allowed you to recieve both at the same time...

I propose changing it to read

"In 1975, Romney recieved a joint M.B.A. and J.D. from Harvard from Harvard Business School and Law School. He was named a Baker Scholar from Harvard Law and graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law and Business School.

The top 5 percent is the same thing as cum laude isn't it? I thought he was cum laude from both harvard business and law...

Anyways, he graduated from both at the same time...myclob 19:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Myclob wrote: "The top 5 percent is the same thing as cum laude isn't it?" No, not according to the Harvard Law School website:

Harvard Law School recognizes the achievement of attaining and maintaining high grades through graduation honors. Students who graduate with a general average of 7.20 and above are honored with the distinction of graduating summa cum laude. The top 10% of the class, excluding summa, are honored with the distinction of graduating magna cum laude. Finally, the next 30% of the class, after magna are honored with the distinction of graduating cum laude.

Thus, if he graduated cum laude from HLS, he was somewhere in the top 40% but was not in the top 10%. Fagles 02:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the info on his education from the AP: "Career note: He simultaneously earned degrees from Harvard Business and Law schools, graduating cum laude from law school and in the top 5 percent of his business school class." You new description would not be accurate based on this information.--Sierraonfire 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the education line to the following:

In 1975, Romney simultaneously earned an MBA from Harvard Business School where he was named a Baker Scholar, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He graduated cum laude from law school and in the top 5 percent of his business school class.

I think this clarifies his education.--Sierraonfire 04:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

One point of clarification: he graduated from the 4-year JD/MBA joint program, which is a bit different from completing each degree separately. Fagles 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag

I have added a POV tag to this article due to a report on the Wikipedia Neutrality Project. Please discuss the POV problems here, and please do not remove the tags until the issues have been resolved, and when you do, please leave a note on the WNP request on it so we know to close the request.

The rationale for the report which was filed is as follows:

“ Concern, as expressed on Talk: Mitt Romney, that article reads too much like campaign literature. 3rd party review for neutrality would be helpful. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC) ”

On the behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and made some minor textual edits that could be percieved as opinionated in favor of the subject. There is some room to develop the alternate positions to some of his controversial statements, opinions, and actions. The only specific problem that I could find was the Tar Baby issue. The use of the definition is an argument in favor of Romney's postion. It should be referenced for the reader, but unless it was used by a member of the debate, it should be excluded from the actual article, or developed in it's own article. Otherwise, I think ZimZalaBim could clarify the issues that lead to a conclusion of biased content.

D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 05:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As a consequence of the move of the Governorship section's text to the Governorship of Mitt Romney article, I propose that the POV tag be taken off in several days, from the Mitt Romney page, since the past concern has primarily been about the governorship period, assuming no editor undoes the move. I leave it to others to decide if Governorship of Mitt Romney is in need of the tag, mindful of the comments immediately above. Comments invited. -- Yellowdesk 16:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that.Notmyrealname 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has no objections, I'll move the tag today (the 11th). Chupper 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the entire article is a glowing management bio. It is not neutral because it talks all about his successes in a glowing way.

Cut housing section?

I think the housing section should be removed. As it currently reads, it only mentions his beliefs about the importance of housing and the fact that he has, like every other governor in the country, used money to support it. The press releases just contain the usual laundry list of projects that happen in every state. Unless somebody can point to a study that shows that Romney did something unusual or innovative in this area, I think we should cut it out entirely. Just wanted to see if there were any valid objections first.Notmyrealname 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would put perspective on the Romney efforts to compare his actions, in concert with the legislature, to the actual unfunded needs of the Commonwealth. It would also allow the reader to compare the statements of the press releases with the fuller context of housing needs and costs in Massachusetts. -- Yellowdesk 06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be good as long as it didn't cross over into original research. As of yet, I don't know of any studies that does this. Until something like this comes out, or compares Romney's actions against the national trends, then I think we should remove it.Notmyrealname 20:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure some reliable published sources can be reviewed on the topic, including published census reports and analysis, state agency reports, Federal Reserve bank publications, conference procedings and land use planning articles and so on. -- Yellowdesk 17:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, until these can be dug up, I'm going to delete the section. As it stands, it says nothing of any value.Notmyrealname 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The housing section wasn't about what he believed, it was about what he did! People say that that was one of his biggest accomplishments...It took me a couple of hours to write that... The press releases that I quoted mentioned things that Romney did. There is no disputing it. They were factual... Lets not focus on symbolism over substance... "oh it came from romney so it is not pure" so what? It is a press release? So what? It is not un-biased, but are you really disputing that the things that it says in their happened? Do we need an un-biased source in order to chronicle un-disputable events? It would have been better to find better sources, instead of delete the whole section because I referenced press releases, and you say that it said nothing... well it would have been better for you to give an example of fluff...It wasn't pro-romney or anti-romney...in fact most republicans probably didn't like it, but it was important historical facts that Romney carred deaply about especially sense his father was in charge of HUD. myclob 02:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

My edit had to do with the lack of notable actions mentioned in the section. The section said that "advocated affordable housing as a way to help the economy." Well, so does just about every governor, mayor, and urban planner in the country. Romney, in coordination with many other officials at the federal, state, and local level, spent money on some projects that you had listed. However, nobody claims that it has either had a significant impact on housing affordability in Massachusetts, nor that any of the programs have been particularly innovative. Thus, unless some new information can be presented, it doesn't really merit any discussion on this page. Contrast this with the health insurance bill. This is new and noteworthy. On the other hand, we don't have a list of every health care project that was funding in Massachusetts during the past four years, even though I'm sure that Romney believes that healthcare is important. Do you see the distinction? My edit was not made for political reasons.Notmyrealname 05:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Myclob, this may be helpful guide, it's from Wikipedia:Notability#Rationale_for_requiring_a_level_of_notability: basically for some topic, has the topic received the attention and interest of several independant published works, beside the person or organization in question. -- Yellowdesk 20:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

====Rationale for requiring a level of notability====

• In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources.
• In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors.
• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Names for campaign sections

This doesn't strictly apply because it's about article names, not sections, (and also about elections, not campaigns) but consider WP:NAME#Elections. schi ^talk 01:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose the several campaign sections be re-titled for consistancy, readability and clarity:

Massachusetts campaign for U.S. Senate, 1994 election

Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign, 2002 election

Presidential campaign, 2008 election

Merits: no section title starts with a numeral, the name of the office is clearly stated for non US readers. The abominable formation 2007-8 is dispensed with for the presidential campaign. Comments or improvements? -- Yellowdesk 15:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed the section titles today, to:

• Mitt Romney#Massachusetts Campaign for United States Senate, 1994 election
• Mitt Romney#Campaign for Massachusetts Governor, 2002 election
• Mitt Romney#Campaign for United States President, 2008 election

-- Yellowdesk 23:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Past tense conversion?

Do we need to convert the language in this article to past tense now that Romney's term is over?Notmyrealname 05:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal on reordering the sections and section levels

I am inclined to put the sections in chronological order, changing "Political Campaigns" section."
The campaign for president will bury the short governorship section, and since it is the currently occuring activity, the presidential campaign should be at the bottom of the page/article.
Presently (as of Jan 10, 2007 here)

1. Biography
1.1 Early life and education
1.2 Business career
1.3 CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee
2 Political Campaigns
2.1 Massachusetts Campaign for United States Senate, 1994 election
2.2 Campaign for Massachusetts Governor, 2002 election
2.3 Campaign for United States President, 2008 election
3 Governorship

Proposed:

1 Early life and family
2 Education
3 Business career
4 CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee
5 Early Political Campaigns
5.1 Massachusetts Campaign for United States Senate, 1994 election
5.2 Campaign for Massachusetts Governor, 2002 election
6 Governorship
7 Campaign for United States President, 2008 election

I propose the Presidential campaign be a top level section, to better permit subsections in the Presidential Campaign.
Or ALL of the sections could be made top level for consistency. Comment and criticism invited. -- Yellowdesk 03:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As implemented -- Yellowdesk 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

5 Massachusetts Political Campaigns
5.1 Campaign for United States Senate, 1994 election
5.2 Campaign for Governor, 2002 election
6 Governor of Massachusetts, 2003-2007
7 Campaign for United States President, 2008 election

Endorsements

Should we list endorsements for Romney's 2008 nomination bid? None of the other contenders have them. Also, every candidate gets a million of these, so this list will go very long. Seems to border on campaign PR to me, but I'd appreciate if others would weigh in.Notmyrealname 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

googling these terms:

• < "romney endorsement" > shows 45,600 items today.
• < "romney endorsement" president > shows 24,400 items today.
• < "romney endorsement" president campaign > shows 895 items today.

Results include things Romney himself endorses. Lt. Gov Healy is one of this type. Some pages don't have endorse on the page, but are in the link to the page. There are a lot of groups that endorse Romney. This has some similarity to the "X for Romney" type of list. Today, top of the list is Senator DeMint's endorsement. If 10 senators, 10 governors, 20 mayors, and 30 Federal House members, and...where does it end...endorse, that begins to approach 100. Plus "X for Romney" Political Action Committee endorsements, a slightly different category, but meaningful in a different kind of way. -- Yellowdesk 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

and another strategy is to have a sub page: List of politicians endorsing Romney -- Yellowdesk 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Created new article: Mitt Romney presidential campaign

I'm looking through the news reports and wow. Information relating to Mitt Romney's presidential race is starting to get to the out of control point. Because of this I have created a new article using the same style as other pres. campaign articles. I hope I'm not jumping the gun, but I'm imagining his presidential run section growing extremely fast in the next couple of weeks. Chupper 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

External links - "official"

I left it in, but:

• Massachusetts Press Releases

doesn't look official to me. Flatterworld 04:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

According to other editors of the Mitt Romney page, the press releases were taken from the Romney's Governor's of Massachsetts state government web pages. The creator of that site's page, (http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Press Releases} was concerned that they would be deleted with the change in Massachusetts administrations. I have not checked to see if that concern came to be a reality. Probably the description for the resource should be changed. -- Yellowdesk 21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved it from the "official" links to the list of "databases," since it seems to be an UNofficial database of official press releases. Fagles 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This page lacks personal political beliefs.

I came here looking for information on his stance on abortion, trade, voting record etc. etc. This is just a biography, surely it can be expanded? 134.226.1.229 15:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stances on some issues can be found in the press releases, actions and policies described and cited in the Governorship of Mitt Romney, which you doubtless saw the link for. There will be more over at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 as time passes and the campaign becomes more fervent. -- Yellowdesk 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no voting record because he has never held office as a legislator and therefore has never voted on any legislation. The governorship article does mention some bills that he signed or vetoed. -Fagles 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a veto record, which has yet to be described, and a signed bills record, which perhaps one percent are described. And there's a rhetoric record, some of which is described, and much not (for example, proposals that were dead letters in the legislature's view.) -- Yellowdesk 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it could be useful to include a section on political views. There are plenty of sources that describe his political views, or quote him on such, particularly on things that he might not have had any legislative experience with. We can take parts from the governorship articles that don't really belong there (I'm thinking in particular of the abortion section). It would, of course, be tricky to keep it WP:NPOV-compliant, but I think it'd be a very useful addition to the main article. schi ^talk 20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the place for describing Romney's beliefs is an historical critique section in the presidential campaign page--that campaign is the only reason people care about his views. I suggest not moving the abortion section out of the Governorship, as there is a bit of history on his changing views revealed as governor. He was endorsed once by Republicans for Choice. I think an analysis of his views written afresh for the presidential page is desirable. One example, by no means a model, as it is scathingly negative, is the recent "Romney is not a Conservative" critique that's been out for a while, which the Boston Globe cites, and which the Romney campaign will have to deal with. Here's the Globe citation: (Michael Levenson. Activist rains on Romney's parade: Says the candidate is not conservative The Boston Globe January 22, 2007.)-- Yellowdesk 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't mean to take out the entire abortion section; I just think there's probably a sentence or two in there can be used in a "Political views" section. I don't see why a "Political views" section would belong better on his presidential campaign page then on the main page; the campaign page would be better off with a section on campaign issues. schi ^talk 22:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If Sam Brownback can have a Political Views section, so can Romney. - Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.124.152.117 (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

---

Here are some arguments for including Romney's views, beliefs and so forth on the Romney Presidential Campaign page.

• The reason his views are notable, is he's campaigning for president. If he were not, they would interest few people and not recieve the interest of journalists and there would be nothing to source and cite.
• His views have been changing, and they have been changing because of his campaign and a national perspective being taken by Romney: some of the stances taken to get elected Governor, or taken when campaigning for Senator have less popular reception nationally as in Massachusetts.

Here's a single example of changing views, and the campaign. Doubtless there will be more analysis articles like this as the campaign progresses.

(Scott Helman. Romney, appealing to core GOP voters, toughens pro-gun rhetoric The Boston Globe. January 14, 2007)

(Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press Writer. Romney retreats on gun control: Ex-governor woos Republican votes The Boston Globe, January 14, 2007)

-- Yellowdesk 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

We may be able to prevent some edit wars by calling it a "Political Positions" section rather than a "Political Beliefs" section. People may disagree on what he "really believes," and it's impossible to know who is right. Instead, the encyclopedia can say what his positions are, and readers can draw their own conclusions. Taking abortion as an example, a Political Beliefs section would say "Romney believes X," whereas a "political positions" section would say "In the 2002 Gubernatorial campaign, Romney's platform stated Y. On January 26, 2007, Romney announced that his position was Z." -Fagles 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---

-->OK: objections or improvements to the proposal that a new section called Political Positions appear on Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008? -- Yellowdesk 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I'll start a new section... with a stub of text to start things off in the next day or two, as described above. (It looks like this has been done already)-- Yellowdesk 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of either Botox, or cosmetic surgery by Romney?

For the third time today I heard mention of Mitt Romney's possible use of Botox or cosmetic surgery, supposedly received in Concord, MA at Emerson Hospital. Online searches show many returns, and there are hints of a CNN story, possibly timed to follow an official announcement of candidacy. Anyone have citable information on this subject? Mormons are prohibited from using elective anti-aging or cosmetic procedures. Restoration or correction of damge from an accident, or disease (auto-immune) is allowed. CApitol3 04:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How much do you want to bet that the person who linked to this "Article" wrote it?

"Romney on Iran and Iraq Mormons For Peace, January 24, 2007"

This should not be listed in the "articles about Romney" section... No one cares about this site, and what it has to say. The New York Times, Boston Globe, and Mormons for Peace? Come on. Get real.

The video of ROmney's debate with Kennedy is highly cut... can we get a more un-biased, full video?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.75.59 (talk • contribs) February 4, 2007 (UTC)

I removed the blog link. The editor who put it in James Oliveleaf can see if it survives as prose with a citation over on the presidential campaign page. -- Yellowdesk 05:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)