Jump to content

Talk:Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RenniePet (talk | contribs) at 13:05, 2 July 2012 (→What's with the "Battleground states" section?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Aquafresh?

Does anyone else think this doesn't really belong in the article? 'The logo was criticized for bearing too much resemblance to the logo for the toothpaste Aquafresh,[10] and the slogan was criticized for being the same as fellow Massachusetts politician John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign.[11]'

Those statements are sourced, but I don't think they're particularly relevant. It's common for blogs to make jokes about candidates and their campaigns, but that doesn't mean those jokes are worth noting (except in exceptional circumstances: see Santorum (neologism) for an unusually notable example). Robofish (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

Do we really need a drop-down Navbox instead of a conventional list? The different parts of the Navbox show up on the Contents list, which makes the whole page confusing, the Navbox seems overly hi-tech when a list (for the purposes of this page, at least) would suffice. SE7Talk/Contribs 12:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree--Brian Earl Haines (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've simplified the endorsements and made them more consistent with other articles. However, many of the entries are unsourced. Unsourced items may be deleted at any time.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SE7 and Brian. In 2008 there were separate articles such as List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008. They were much easier to read. I don't know what these drop-down boxes are supposed to be consistent with, but I don't find them user-friendly for this particular purpose. They work for things few people want to see, such as historical material. If you really believe few people are interested in endorsements, then make a separate article. This combines the worst of both worlds. 75.60.4.248 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Times resource

October 14, 2011 Romney’s flawless campaign fails to engage voters by Richard McGregor in Washington D.C. 99.119.131.17 (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romney Backs Ohio Vote to Curb Unions. WSJ resource

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/26/mitt-romney-hes-110-for-ohio-ballot-measure-to-curb-public-employee-unions/ October 26, 2011, 1:24 PM ET by Danny Yadron, regarding Labor unions. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ page A4; Romney rivals

Romney Rivals See Flip-Flop October 29, 2011 by JONATHAN WEISMAN in The Wall Street Journal; excerpt ...

"Mitt Romney's positions change, often dramatically, depending on the audience or location," said Ray Sullivan, a spokesman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry, also a GOP candidate. "Voters need to consider the fact that Romney, in one week, changed positions on man-made global warming, capping carbon emissions and Ohio's efforts to curb union powers."

97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State legislators

In the state legislators section of the endorsements, many of the people listed are not, in fact, state legislators. What should we do about the non-state legislators listed there? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, their offices should be correctly listed. If they are not significant persons, such as those who would qualify as notable for Wikipedia purposes, then they should probably not be listed. All entries should be sourced, which is currently a problem. I will soon delete all unsourced entries.   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The usual procedure is to flag unsourced entries with [citation needed] if they seem likely to be true. Who are you, making all these unilateral decisions by fiat? 75.60.4.248 (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Info

Seems that there is far too little info on his campaign. 96.251.196.21 (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is for media to cover. This reason here is to list hundreds nay thousands of endorsements Romney has. No reason other.70.42.157.5 (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Staffers

Rrmvd Ajay Bruno from infobox's listing of staffers.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa caucuses

Shouldn't the page mention that Mitt won the Iowa caucuses last night? Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 21:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: did it myself. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 21:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also completed is that now Santorum has won Iowa by 34 votes. The article could mention that delegates are 'proportioned'. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PBS NewsHour potential resource

Huntsman: Republicans Are 'Splintered' Over Foreign Policy, Spending Cuts Newsmaker Interview air date: Jan. 5, 2012; transcript excerpt ...

Jon Huntsman: Well, in the sense that, whether from a foreign policy standpoint, there's some divide between the isolationist wing of Ron Paul, the Cold War mentality of a Mitt Romney. I think there are different opinions on things like tax reform and how deep to cut and how to deal with Social Security and Medicare. I think there are a lot of differing opinions right now.

(Summary: Gwen Ifill spoke with Huntsman in Manchester.) See Jon Huntsman presidential campaign, 2012 99.181.130.110 (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the New Hampshire Republican Primary election

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

http://2012newhampshireprimary.com/ . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unconfusing the "confusing" Iowa Caucuses paragraph

A tag has been added that the Iowa Caucuses paragraph is confusing. I agree. Once the final tally count is in next week, the paragraph can be rewritten and some of the negativism removed. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed the "Confusing" tag and the final certified voting is in. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown vote-count in Iowa
2012 Iowa Republican Caucus Certified vote totals (1766 of 1774 precincts certified)
. Rick Santorum . . . 29,839

. Mitt Romney . . . 29,805

. Ron Paul . . . 26,036


. Newt Gingrich . . . 16,163


. Rick Perry . . . 12,557


. Michele Bachmann . . . 6,046


. Jon Huntsman . . . 739


. No Preference . . . 147


. Other . . . 86


. Herman Cain . . . 45


. Sarah Palin . . . 23


. Buddy Roemer . . . 17

Total Certified 121,503

http://IowaGOP.org/iowagop/ . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add Marriott connection?

Add Marriott money connection, regarding Political action committee#Super PACs? 99.181.131.215 (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something ... Mitt Romney's biggest backer: Bain Capital by Dave Levinthal 1/13/12 6:16 PM EST Politico; excerpt ...

Associates of private equity firm Bain Capital, once run by Mitt Romney, have fueled the GOP front-runner’s political fortunes more than any other, asserts a new report by the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation. In all, current and former executives and family members of Bain Capital have contributed more than $2.7 million to Romney’s state and federal campaigns, leadership political action committees and Massachusetts gubernatorial inauguration fundraising committee, as well as the independent Restore Our Future super PAC backing Romney’s White House bid, according to the report. Bain Capital-related contributions easily outpace those of people and entities associated with Romney’s other top political patrons, including Marriott hotels, Nu Skin Enterprises and hedge fund Paulson & Co. ...

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich roundly criticized Romney’s work at Bain, before largely dropping the issue after facing criticism himself for it.

Internal links

99.19.45.64 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Responsive Politics resource

99.181.140.39 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Super PAC resource; PAC Men: Following the Super PAC Soft Money Jan 13, 2012 2:14pm; excerpt ...
99.181.133.228 (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

potential NYT resource

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/candidates/mitt-romney

99.181.138.52 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Report from The New York Times also includes:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jon-huntsman-dropping-out-of-2012-gop-race-will-endorse-romney/
FYI . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FiveThirtyEight resource

National Polls Suggest Romney Is Overwhelming Favorite for G.O.P. Nomination by Nate Silver January 16, 2012, 3:15 PM 99.35.12.102 (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These statistics must have changed since Santorum now has won the Iowa Republican caucuses, 2012. 99.181.149.83 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More current (January 23, 2012, 8:14 PM); Some Signs G.O.P. Establishment’s Backing of Romney Is Tenuous by Nate Silver. 99.190.83.66 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Rose (talk show) resources

99.181.154.161 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NYT resources

Tightening Race Comes as Abrupt Blow to Romney Team by Jim Rutenberg, Ashley Parker and Jeff Zeleny published January 20, 2012

Here is another, In Florida, Romney Plays Down Immigration by Lizette Alvarez, published January 24, 2012; regarding Demographics of Florida, Immigration in the United States, and the Economy of the United States. 99.181.134.88 (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

99.181.144.253 (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party movement resource

Mitt Romney drives a wedge into the tea party "In South Carolina, the movement is divided between those inclined to compromise in order to beat President Obama (vote for Romney) and those favoring ideological purity (vote against him)." by Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times January 21, 2012 via the Chicago Tribune. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone in the Tea Party votes the same; many, apparently, vote for Mitt Romney . . . (Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum also). The Tea Party movement resource is a voting block split four ways. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative destruction resource

97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible Vice Presidential picks" section

I think this section should be reworked so that only people who have been specifically mentioned as a possible running mate to Romney should be allowed in, and a reliable source indicating this be required. Trump's citations don't currently seem to do this, only indicating that he has met with Romney and that it is the opinion of one writer that he should be Romney's running mate. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, "... Romney [said] he hadn't made a list regarding potential Vice Presidential picks, arguing it would be 'presumptuous'." [1] ... Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible Vice presidential picks" section RfC

Seeing as though my previous post didn't get any attention in a week, I'm making an RfC. I still believe that nobody should be listed in this section unless their discussion as a possible running mate to Romney has been specifically mentioned in a reliable source, and that source is cited. Christie, Rubio and McDonnell are currently unsourced, and Trump's sources aren't the best, as I pointed out above. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Going a step further: the section should probably not be included at all, and only be re-introduced when Romney is nominated or recognized as the presumptive nominee in reliable sources. At the very least, unsourced entries should be removed. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that only names that are reliably sourced should be included. I would go a step further and say that "possible VP picks" section should not be in the article until Romney is recognized by reliable sources as the the Republican presumptive nominee.--JayJasper (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's almost assuming that Romney will be the Republican nominee, and certainly seems POVish. Upon second thought, you're probably right, and I've changed the RfC. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all VP speculation as premature until no reasonable person would dispute contention that this candidate is the presumptive nominee.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's any harm in listing reliably-sourced speculation. Ideally we'd have similar sections for other 2012 campaigns and for past unsuccessful primary campaigns. The context (i.e. that he's not the nominee yet and might never be) could be made clearer if the section were in prose rather than list format. – hysteria18 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reject all such speculation as the political equivalent of fancruft, and equally non-encyclopedic in nature. It has no place here, under WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTAL. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/ Bdell555 & Orangemike. Remove the section. Revisit if & when Romney is established as the presumptive nominee.--JayJasper (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with minimizing entries to 'Possible VP selection'. Romney will win at the Republican Convention in August in Florida and not before. How can you minimize the people listed? By including only the most credible. .!. . Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a grocery store Enquirer. .!. . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked over to the Article and the section in question is not there, for now. Upon further reflection I think it is good that it is not, at this time. Rush Limbaugh reminds us that in debates, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney did not follow the apparent norm of attacking everyone else on stage which included Gingrich and Santorum. Is Rand Paul in consideration for an ambassadorship or the VP selection? Rush noticed this in January but didn't say anything then. Now he does and other sources notice this now also. I think it is very presumptive to over-think what is in the mind of Romney and his campaign strategists. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it should be removed. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, let's support it. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked again over to the article and the section is back (with four VP possibilities). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We may not know till May (or until convention in August in Tampa FL). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is the VP list back, we now have pictures of four that will never be VP. On TV Romney said it's too early. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR THIS SECTION????--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Keep - Romney has made statements about what type of VP he would choose and the media has been covering the topic of potential VP candidates. Analysts have made comments. The issue speaks for itself, not necessary to place arbitrary limits on editors who may find something to contribute. It can be discussed on a case by case basis. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have a problem with including a "possible VP pics" section although it's not really necessary to include a massive table with pictures, surely a list would be much better. When he inevitably wins the nomination, speculation in reliable sources will increase and the GOP candidates page had a "speculated candidates" section. My only question is, where are Rubio, McDonnell and Jindal? After Christie, they've been the 3 I've seen the most speculation over and they're not listed? Tiller54 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rubio has removed himself from consideration, and Jindal has not even endorsed Romney or supported Romney. Candidates that are too far out of line with Romney on issues are probably much less likely to be selected anyway. The topic contains important information. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Candidates that are too far out of line with Romney on issues are probably much less likely to be selected anyway" - According to who? you?
"The topic contains important information." That sounds a bit like WP:USEFUL. If you are adamant about adding this section, you need to drop the POV opening, and develop an actual criteria for listing. A start would be for you to use sources that actually speculate an individual may be selected, and to not simply pick and choose candidates based on your own judgment. As part of NPOV, if you insist on this, you have an obligation to list all candidates that receive mention.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to place arbitrary limits on editors. The topic speaks for itself. Its sourced information. If you have suggestions for inclusion you should make them and stop removing the work of others.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no criteria then the list is POV and I will continue to remove it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List is not POV. The topic has a cited source taht discusses inclusion. If you have suggestions for inclusion you should make them. Please do not remove the work of others.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources discussing these individuals as possible VP's, the content is appropriate. It's the inclusion of a "Religion" category wording like "Christie lacks business experience; he has experience as a lobbyist, U.S. Attorney, and Governor" that pushes the boundaries of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the VP section is appropriate. Religion is just demographic/biographical information. Its a fact that Christie lacks business experience, but the wording can change.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are cherry-picking. For example, you list this as a source, but you only show certain candidates and fail to mention Rubio, Sandoval, Martinez, Haley, and Fortuno. This article is about the Romney campaign, and should not stray from this, particularly with such a prominent section. Do you have a source showing the Romney campaign is actively recruiting the individuals listed? Perhaps a NPOV-version of this list could be added to a new article of its own as it was in 2008. At the moment, nothing more than a mention is appropriate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Paine1776 is even cherrypicking from my response. It's OR/SYNTH/NPOV to even assume that things like religion and type of experience is a pro or con for the Romney team in deciding on their VP. The section as you've edit warred to restore is unacceptable. I've reported the user at WP:3RRNB. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented there.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with those who've said the VP section is appropriate. Have no objection to adding names. You're certainly free to add names. Rubio was listed at one time and his name was removed by someone else who noted it when he had removed himself from consideration. Have been looking at adding Sandoval, however, Sandoval endorsed Perry and does not not appear have endorsed Romney even before the Nevada caucuses. Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Gov. Suzanna Martinez have recently removed themselves from consideration. I you have suggestions please give them. Biographical information is simply factual. The lead section you objected to was removed in case you didn't notice. Wholly removing sourced content is not appropriate.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removal is appropriate when material is irrelevant to an article's subject.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The vice-presidential speculation in the "Presumptive Presidential Nominee" section should at least resemble the "Republican Party Vice Presidential Candidates, 2012" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.145.205.64 (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article, Republican_Party_vice_presidential_candidates,_2012 looks pretty good to me. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What he stands for

Where's the section on his campaign platform? Can we put a summary of Political positions of Mitt Romney here? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I really enjoyed reading your user page. I'll work on a draft of a summary. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etch-A-Sketch

I believe this should be added to the article, but first a discussion is in order. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to include the PR-man's full quote (and the question before it) and then Romney's explanation. It comes at a time others may drop out. It is tempest in a teacup, and I am not sure it raises to the level of importance here. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I may be changing my mind on this. Santorum, Gingrich, and the media thought the comment of the Romney advisor was 'red meat' whereas Romney explained things rather well. It should go under the category we have for 'Controvery'. .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC) (And it should be medium-short.)[reply]

There is some interesting writing at Etch_A_Sketch#In_2012_U.S._Presidential_campaign .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Good idea, Muboshgu. Check it out. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

Why is the elephant in the room (his religion) also the elephant on this page? Why's there no section on it? It's a sensitive subject the guy is playing down for electoral reasons. Hence, it's an issue. (Also, how big is his cousin's apostasy and criticism of Mormonism over there in the US? The BBC just did this article on it... but as a Brit it's hard for me to tell the importance of it). Malick78 (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is no one interested because it was exhausted in 2008? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nobody wanted to risk having Mitt flip-flop on his religious beliefs, but in his 666th unforced error of the campaign (so far), he's decided to bring up the issue himself.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/03/457068/romney-obama-hopes-to-establish-secularism-as-an-official-religion/

Insert youtube link to video of Kermit the frog going Yayyy! here I suppose. Hcobb (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romney (LDS) will take the approach of JFK (Catholic) to recognize the boundaries. Voters will also. It could remain a problem with bigots, but not with the majority of likely voters. (FYI, and in my humble opinion.) What do you think? . . . Have you seen anything reported in reportable sources? You could note that both John F. Kennedy and Mitt Romney made a significant speech addressing the subject of their religion early on in their campaign cycle. Based on their campaign results, people seem to have accepted their religion, at least so far with Romney. Ann Romney is very popular also. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trump as VP !?

You guys gotta be kidding. Trump duplicates Mitt's big strength - business. - and brings a world of baggage. He's also impossible to work with. Don't you guys have any political common sense? 174.254.197.154 (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check this unofficial list out: http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/04/09/veep-madness-round-1-cast-your-votes/#more-56558 . . . .
Have fun, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cookiegate

Arthur Rubin and 99.181.129.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been edit warring over whether to include content about the flap over Romney's disparaging remarks about cookies from a "beloved local bakery" owned by a Republican in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. The press has picked it up under the name, and the content is extremely well cited, with eight separate refs. Arthur thinks it's undue and even a BLP violation, according to the most recent of his three reverts. Whether it's undue or not is a judgement call that should be worked out here, rather than by edit warring, but to assert that sourced statements of this nature about a major political figure constitute a BLP violation is so utterly ridiculous that I reverted Arthur's 3rd reversion just on that basis alone. On a side note, it appears at first glance that one might be following the other's edits, but I'm not sure who's doing the following and who's being followed. An admin with more patience than I have at present might like to look into that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the presence of the above, and despite my previous edit-summary request that editors involved in this dispute work it out here rather than edit war over the passage, user Fat&Happy (talk · contribs) just performed a "drive by revert", ie a revert without joining the discussion here to try to achieve consensus. In that 15:20, 21 April 2012 revert, he gave the edit summary "no consensus for inclusion of this contested, trivial recentism". I would invite him to read the don't revert due to no consensus essay, and remind him that the development of consensus happens on talk pages. There's no consensus yet for anything, including his revert, since no one else has used this talk page to discuss this matter so far.
Further, F&H's evident opinion as to whether something is "trivial" or not is completely irrelevant. What's is relevant is how significant reliable sources think it is. Deleting content with 8 refs, when another 10 or more could easily be added as well, on the basis that it's "trivial" certainly calls for discussion. It's not something that can legitimately be based only on his opinion. FWIW, own opinion is that the kerfuffle would have been trivial, ie the news media wouldn't have made much of it, but for the baker's comment, "Next time, let him eat cake." That's obviously a highly political statement, obviously a reference to Romney's wealth, and one that characterises him as out of touch with the people, like Marie Antoinette was supposed to have been. Coming from a fellow Republican, that's noteworthy, imo, and the national media evidently agrees.
Finally, F&H's "recentism" claim seems hard to sustain, in that everything about the Romney presidential campaign is "recentism". In any case, he needs to try to make his case here, and base his edits on whatever consensus may emerge, instead of simply acting unilaterally to get his way.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fat&Happy reverted a second time, six minutes after I posted the comment immediately above, still without use of this talk page.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Perhaps if OhioStandard would stop typing long enough to give someone else a chance, the discussion could contain alternate viewpoints.
Actually, it's the responsibility of those (two) people attempting to insert contentious material into any article – especially a BLP – to get consensus for the insertion on the talk page. Until that consensus is reached, the material should stay out despite OhioStandard's attempt to edit-war it back in. This is, some seem to forget, an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or a political blog. A flurry of activity over a candidate's faux pas du jour does not constitute an indication of encyclopedic importance. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no percentage in making snide comments or accusing others, quite falsely, of edit warring: I've tried repeatedly to engage opposing editors here, and F&H simply refused until now. His theorizing above and in his previous edit summary that BRD applies not only to two individuals, but is also appropriately extendible to third persons is interesting, but a bit too academic for me so early in the morning. He might like to read BRD a little more closely, too, e.g. "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."
The main purpose of the wp:brd cycle is to bring editors to the talk page to do exactly that, i.e. to provide a basis for article improvement via reasoned, policy-based discussion rather than edit warring. Now, we have two editors in favor of the disputed passage, and two who oppose, so far, with only one (ahem!) of the four presenting any substantive, policy-based arguments one way or the other here. As I've already indicated, I'd be pleased to hear F&H explain why, for example, we should allow his personal opinion that this is "trivial", to use his word, to trump the fact that so many media properties have seen fit to report on it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Besides hoping for policy-based discussion here, I'd also ask that all editors refrain from further suggestions that deletion is justified in this instance by WP:BLP. It's frankly offensive to ask anyone to believe that in this case. Crying, "Help! Help! BLP! BLP!" to win a content dispute whenever someone adds a well-cited a passage you dislike to an article about your favourite politician trivialises the policy and makes it less effective when it really is needed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that the so-called Cookiegate incident is likely to fail the 10-year test and consequently does not merit inclusion in the article, per WP:RECENTISM. I doubt that this incident will be remembered even 3 months from now, let alone 3 years or 10 years from now. In fact, I've been surprised at how much attention it's received in the media. Tempest in a teapot. I guess they have to make up news when things are slow. So I favor not including a mention of Cookiegate in the article. (That opinion could change if there continues to be ongoing discussion in the media and among political commentators about Cookiegate. I, for one, would not have mentioned the Seamus-the-dog incident in an article about the campaign when that topic first came up in this election cycle, but it has proved to be a topic of wide and enduring interest, and I suspect that it will be one of the factoids that people remember about Mitt Romney 20 years from now, so it does merit inclusion.)
Having said that, if Cookiegate is to be included in this article, the way it is presented MUST be changed. The line currently being discussed is: While visiting Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, Romney stated cookies from a local bakery must have come from a 7-11, insulting the Republican bakery owner John Walsh. "Let him eat cake next time," Walsh said. At a minimum, there needs to be at least some kind of acknowledgement that Romney did not intend (so far as has been reported) to insult anyone -- so add the word inadvertently, or unintentionally, or accidentally, or something. It would probably also be best, if Cookiegate were to be included, to provide some kind of context explaining why campaign observers have felt this was a notable incident. From the commentary I have seen, some political observers have suggsted that it was (yet another) example of Romney's difficulty making small talk and connecting with "average people" on the campaign trail.Dezastru (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reasoned post on this, Dez. I think the content was added as a single line in a kind of pre-emptively defensive way, i.e. that it was so brief because the editor who initially added it expected he'd see some opposition to it here, and wanted to keep it to the "bare bones" for that reason. But if we can find sources that say Romney did the civil in the way you describe - and I'd agree that there probably are some, at least from his campaign if not from himself - then I'd be wholly in favor of including any such mitigating statements.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

( ← outdenting ) Are you all discussing deleted subsection Cookiegate

While visiting Bethel Park, Pennsylvania stated cookies from a local bakery must have come from a 7-11, insulting the Republican bakery owner John Walsh. "Let him eat cake next time," Walsh said.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

and the Also see Let Them Eat Cake here? 99.181.148.5 (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "See also" is absurd, even if the material were adequately sourced and not in violation of WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@IP-hopper 99.x, I'll give you the respect of assuming you already know the answer to that. Now if you and Arthur would like to suspend your mutual entertainments for a bit, I'd be pleased if you'd make a substantive effort toward reaching consensus here.
@Arthur: I understand why you find the "see also" objectionable; that occurred to me, too. But something like half our readers don't have English as their native language, iirc. Can you think of any other way to communicate the intended context to people who may not already be familiar with the ostensibly historical quotation? Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain what you think is wrong with the sources, and disclose the basis for your view that this constitutes a BLP violation. It's the "see also", I suppose? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are many news items on this socio-political gaffe. It is noteworthy here or some connected controversies article. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some from a quick Google search:
99.181.142.150 (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, stop pretending that you different editors. Even assuming the clearly false statement that all of those "news articles" are reliable, and, even if there are "many news articles" mentioning this particular gaffe, it doesn't mean it deserves as much as a paragraph in this article. Please see WP:UNDUE.
And, to reply to the the real editor who seems to be interested in improving Wikipedia, most of the references are not to reliable sources or conventional news media. The first time the anon (yes, all of them are clearly the same person) added it, there was no reliable source provided, making the accusation a WP:BLP violation on its face. The controversies here are probably already WP:UNDUE weight in regard the campaign; even if this one were adequately sourced, some of the other controversies would need to be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall Street Journal's take Romney’s Cookie Comment Bites Back April 18, 2012, 6:49 PM 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing placement, a column in the WSJ does not indicate notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After having considered this for a while, now, I'm going to withdraw my objection to the revert. I still think it merits the single sentence that was added − although probably not its own section − but it's not anything I feel is worth this much contention, either. The whole long-term goings on between Arthur and our IP hopping friend does leave me with some questions, though, and since I see the two are now at ANI (link/snapshot) over another article, I'll probably comment in that thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quayle picture

Should we really keep it? Specifically in the endorsement section? It's not his most noteworthy endorsement, but I suppose it was an early indication he'd be backed by high-ranking people of the party. J390 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of place. The picture really sticks out like a sore thumb. What point is the contributor trying to make? Dezastru (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think we should remove it. J390 (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gay bullying controversy

Is it too soon to include the accusations of bullying a (possibly) gay student and Romney's response in the Media Issues section? On the one hand, it's not appropraite to report on things as they happen because notability requires long term coverage, but on the other hand I don't think that this is just going to blow over, what with gay rights becoming such a major part of the election.Euchrid (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't something Romney did during the campaign, so if it goes anywhere, ought it not to be part of his own page? And why can't we just accept him at his word that he's losing his memory and laugh with him as he makes jokes about his own memory loss? Hcobb (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm thinking that it goes here as the discussion surrounding it will likely play a role in the campaign, though you could be right. Worth seeing how it plays out before making a decision, though. Euchrid (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a separate page since this issue stands on its own. The incident was well researched by the Washington Post and Romney has replied to it. There is just one line on the article that refers to the incident and that is as generic as possible. It is in section See also. It simple reads. Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident Unless there is fallout that hurts his campaign owing to the Cranbrook incident I agree that no further mention is needed.Pbmaise (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WaPo article is being contridicted by other sources and they have made corrections to their own story because they cannot seem to get their facts straight. It is premature to start adding political hit jobs to the Romney articles, especially on the day the story breaks. Arzel (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just commented the Cranbrook section out. Aside from the poor writing, which violates WP:NPOV, I believe it's WP:UNDUE, as there's no suggestion that this has any impact on the campaign whatsoever. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may have read . . . The family of the now deceased student says that media accounts are not accurate and decry the politicization. For legal reasons, Wikipedia should stay away from this incident. I searched and do not see it currently in the article. FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, from UK Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9260731/US-election-Mitt-Romney-scrambles-to-find-school-friends-who-say-he-was-not-a-bully.html (Interesting reading), UK Telegraph noting what some of our US news sources don't; . . . FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements section needs citations

There are still quite a few entries in the endorsements section that are unsourced, so I am not sure why the citations needed banner was removed. I placed the banner to remind* editors that unsourced entries are subject to removal. (I know it's a huge pain in the rear to spend a lot of time typing in info only to have it washed away without being given a chance to correct the problems first.)

(*) there is also a hidden note that only appears when editing the page which states, "adding endorsers without a citation (preferably footnoted) to a reliable published source subjects the addition to removal"; but it's possible that some editors may not see that note or may have forgotten it is there Dezastru (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the banner. Writegeist (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media Issues

This whole section ought to be removed or balanced with some positive coverage of the candidate. If you look at the Barack Obama presidential campaign 2008 page or 2012 page, there is no such section. Are Seamus the dog, a 50-year old haircut, an advisor's comment about an Etch-a-Sketch and a misspelling really the only issues of relevance in this campaign, because other than the basic information of the campaign (formation of exploratory committee, primary results, endorsements, etc.) that is all that this article offers. Note that with 43 ratings so far, objectivity of this article is at 1.0, so I am not the only one that has noticed this. Can anyone defend this section? Pres10mb (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Pres10mb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, that's not exactly correct; the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 does contain all those controversies under the section "Controversies, allegations, and rumors during the primary campaign", which includes the birther stuff, the Jeremiah Wright issue, and various other items. Perhaps the appropriate course is to add a "Controveries" section to the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 page, or even spin off a separate "Mitt Romney presidential primary campaign, 2012" page, since Romney is clearly going to be the nominee? Dougom (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the ratings I'm seeing are actually: Trustworthy=5 (45 ratings); Objective=5 (46 ratings); Complete=4 (47 ratings); Well-written=4 (44 ratings). I'm not sure where the above poster got his numbers from, but given these numbers, I would say his or her conclusions are not necessarily accurate.Dougom (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


With the history of the negative ratings of the objectivity of this article a

N-POV Should be added to the Media issues section if not the entire article.

--Viewmont Viking (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Viewmont Viking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Honestly not sure why the NPOV dispute was taken off. Adding a story to media issues does not make it a NPOV. This article out of 45 people responding has 1 star average for objectivity. 2 paragraphs on the dog issue, 3 paragraphs on the etch e sketch comment. A comment about how Mitt is struggling with gaining donors from back in March when last month (May) he outraised his opponent. Wasted Time R, who has over 60,000 edits, mentions in the Mitt Romney article " The Olympics spending debate could of course be added to the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article ... but in my opinion that article is almost completely worthless as it stands now. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)" Even he believes this current article as it stands is pretty much a joke. I believe and would vote to add back on the NPOV Dispute tag and probably delete the entire Media Issues section, unless it starts talking about the campaign and not these trivial gotchas. Viewmont Viking (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Viewmont Viking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


I agree with 74.98.14.97 that the Rescue Story's in the Media section are non notable. I also believe that most of the information in the Media section is not notable. With the possible exception of the Mitt Romney Dog Incident as it has already been determined it is notable and has its own page. Let us work together to clean up this whole article. Viewmont Viking (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Viewmont Viking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I agree that these Media issues are not notable. As Pres10mb pointed out, the Obama campaign article does not bother to include such trivial news items. After all, they could easily include some of the "birther" arguments. If the Etch-A-Sketch issue kept recurring throughout the campaign, it might be worth including, but that doesn't seem likely. I motion to delete the Media Issues section and include the Seamus article under "See Also." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.14.79 (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no consensus to remove all of this information. It's not trivia, it's the campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree. Most politicians and major public figures have "Controversy" sections in their bios. I can see maybe modifying it or moving it (see my post above), but it doesn't seem untoward to me.Dougom (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against modifying it, but that would need discussion on the "how". I am against this single-purpose account blanking material repeatedly. As for "Etch-A-Sketch", the conservative Weekly Standard just had it on their cover two weeks ago.[2] Seamus has come up as a campaign issue already as well. Birtherism can be included in the Obama article, as it portends to the campaign (if it does). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, the various Obama "controversies" are already covered in the the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 page. Rather than a rehash, I would suggest just linking to that page from the 2012 page, if people feel that any mention is necessary at all.Dougom (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of (politician) lying though? Really? I just find this whole section laughable and am completely dumbstruck by this sections focus on non notable, trivial issues produced by the 24 hour news cycle. If anything, it seems like this article should describe how Romney is portrayed as out of touch, and too rich to understand the American people. Take this video for instance. By the way, I do think that the Seamus story is important--but that's a own separate article now. Also, thanks for pointing out the Weekly Standard cover. Perhaps the etch-a-sketch has legs, though we'll have to see. --A former Wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.14.79 (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A controversy section would be a good idea instead of Media Issues. Also there must be something wrong with the tracker because as of 7:09 PM Eastern/NY Time the ratings were as follows.

Trustworthy 2.3 46 ratings; Objective 2.3 47 ratings; Complete 2.0 48 ratings; Well-written 2.3 45 ratings If it swung so much from just a couple of hours ago with just one additional person ranking it cannot be accurate. As for Accusations of Lying I would not necessarily consider Rachel Maddow as an unbiased source. No one would allow Rush Limbaugh's or Glen Beck's opinion on an article about Barack Obama. In addition I believe a lot of updating needs to be added to this article before it can be considered well written and Complete. Viewmont Viking (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that Ms. Maddow is not unbiased; that's why I included no fewer than 4 other citations, including ones from the Washington Post, Time Magazine, and the New York times, in order to demonstrate that the story has "legs". Maddow was just the first to make a big deal out of it. A few seconds spent searching via google will demonstrate that there's literally hundreds of stories out there on the same topic. I'm sorry unsigned up above finds it "laughable", but the stories are out there, and being written and talked about by more than just the Maddow show. As Muboshgu points out, "it's the campaign." The Obama stuff is all documented under the Obama 2008 Primary Campaign page; why not this stuff?Dougom (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing the same trustworthy and objectivity ratings as Viewmont Viking. Maybe pres10mb was not using the correct procedure for reading the ratings? Regardless, as far as I am aware, it is not possible for raters to attach to their ratings explicit statements of why they feel an article is trustworthy or untrustworthy, so there's no way to know that the Media Issues section is the problem. It's perfectly valid for a user to say here on the Talk page that he or she feels the Media Issues section is not objective. But it is a huge stretch to then point to the trustworthiness and objectivity ratings as evidence that the Media Issues section is the weak link and must be removed. Dezastru (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dezastru that the ratings system cannot be used to determine whether the media issues is poorly written and conceived. That being said, I think its worth pursuing the statistics behind the Romney lying section. If one looks on the PolitiFact website, Obama has told 53% half true statements (compared to Romney's 69%). Neither are terribly great--about what I would expect from a politician. While Romney is clearly shown by Politifact to be less honest than Obama, I think these statistics are slightly misleading in light of their sample size. Whereas both Obama's campaign and presidency is being scrutinized, only Romney's campaign is under scrutiny. The larger sample size helps Obama. For instance, Politifact notes (link):
"For the Obameter, for example, we decided to include anything that fit our definition, regardless of how easily Obama could keep the promise. (We felt we couldn't discard a promise simply because it was an easy one to achieve.) So you'll find a fair number that are the presidential equivalent of easy lay-ups, promises that Obama is virtually certain to keep. They include some very general ones such as 'Pursue a wildfire management plan' and his plan for 'additional personnel, infrastructure and technology' along the U.S. border."
As for Dougom's citations, Daily Kos is clearly a biased source, the Time's citation is an editorial (which the Time notes, "The views expressed are solely [the editorialist's] own"), and the Huffingpost is, well, the Huffington Post. I find no problem with the Washington Post. Your New York Times citation, however, is missing. Again, I just don't find a section on a politician lying particularly significant. Even Donald Trump, who has a 90% lying rating according to PolitiFact isn't described as a liar on his page--though I don't need PolitiFact to tell me that! Please don't take my commentary as political punditry in favor of Romney. As I have said before and will say again, there are plenty of notable negative issues on this campaign (money, relatability, and so on). While we may disagree on what goes into this section, I do want to note my appreciation of everyone's efforts. I think this page has become better in the last week. --A former Wikipedian
The point is not that Romney lies; the point is that it has become a story in the campaign, similar to the various other fakey "controversies" that came up during the 2008 campaign and are covered under a "Controversies" section in the "Obama 2008 Primary Campaign" page. Some more articles: New York magazine: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/romney-just-making-stuff-up-now.html; US News and World Report: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/01/12/mitt-romneys-lies; New York magazine (again): http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/mitt-romney-lies-a-lot-but-hes-not-a-liar.html; The Drudge Report (certainly not a liberal bastion): http://www.drudge.com/news/156578/romney-lies-auto-bailout; The American Prospect: http://prospect.org/article/more-mitt-romneys-lies; Patriot Newswire: http://patriot-newswire.com/2012/01/two-huge-romney-lies-at-cnn-debate-debunked-by-gregg-jackson/; etc. And of course sites like Crooks and Liars and ThinkProgress have multiple stories on it. It's a campaign story. If "Obama Lies" becomes a similar story, then by all means put in a section on it. Dougom (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"If 'Obama Lies' becomes a similar story, then by all means put in a section on it." Dougom, you mistake my intentions. Even if this happened, why would I include such a section on the Obama page? Like I've said many times, this is not a partisan issue for me. This is a matter of notability. If it isn't notable for Mitt, why would it be notable for Obama? Cheers. -- A former Wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.252.169 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think you missed my point. If it does become an ongoing issue with the Obama campaign, hey, put it in there somewhere. It is an ongoing issue for Romney, so it seems to me it is worth putting in here. Heck, there was just a New York Times editorial on the topic today, for Heaven's sake: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/opinion/the-political-contrast.html?_r=1&hp To me, that clearly means an ongoing issue. And I know this is going to sound snarky, but I assure you it's not: You sign yourself "A Former Wikipedian", but since you are posting anonymously, I think that detracts from your argument. Heck, the Dan Quayle "potato/potatoe" incident is prominently featured on his page. I say again: this seems right in the same range as that, or talking about Obama's birth certificate or his alleged refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance. I honestly don't see how this is any different. Dougom (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily say you're being snarky, just engaging in a red herring. But just to let you know I write in good faith, here's an explanation to your accusation. I started signing myself "A former Wikipedian" after one of my comments was accidentally attributed to you during Muboshgu's 17:21 14 June edit. It seems peculiar to me that I should be accused of acting anonymously on Wikipedi--an encyclopedia that anyone can edit--especially since I have done no harm to the article. If I were a Romney troll I suppose I could see the value in such a snarky comment, though as it should be abundantly clear to anyone who has followed my edits over the last week, I do not support Romney. Quite frankly I think there should be more in this article about his wealth, perceived lack of sympathy, and inability to identify with the common american. Would it make you feel better if I signed up for another account? (I lost the password to my previous one after going on a Wikibreak) --A former Wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.252.169 (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you were a troll; I was just saying that I give more credence to the opinions of people who aren't anonymous. I take you at your word, however.Dougom (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and done some re-organizing, re-titling, and tweaking based on folks' comments here. Perhaps that will help.Dougom (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RM's Opion on Romney is not notable. She is a highly biased source with a small viewership. Many of these so called issues were brought up during the presidential primary, but have had almost no mention now that the election is underway. Let us please not use WP as a political mouthpiece to promote or denegrate a candidate. Arzel (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The viewership for Maddow's show, so far as I've been able to find, seems to vary between 1 and 1.2 million viewers per night. For comparison, Jim Lehrer's "The Newshour" gets around 2.7 million/broadcast; Fox Report (the Fox News news program hosted by Shep Smith) gets around 1.5 million/broadcast; The New York Times has a circulation of about 1.6 million/day; The Washington Post has a circulation of about 500,000/day; The Wall St. Journal has a circulation of about 2.1 million/day; Newsweek->1.5 million/week; Time->3.3 million/week. Network news broadcasts are 5.2 million/night (CBS), 6.7 million/night (ABC), and 7.5 million/night (NBC). FWIW. Dougom (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the entire section on lying because it is based of a scenario using WP:OR You cannot count up the PF responses in that way to imply that more than half of his statements are lies. After going to Politifact it is clear that is excaly what was done. If editors cannot include information in a neutral tone without the use of original research then please do not add it to WP. I also would like to remind people about the use of Blogs as sources. A blog from a high school student on Huffington Post is simply not a reliable source for anything. Arzel (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, and remains, that since exactly these same kinds of issues appear under the Obama 2008 Primary page, why not here? I did my level best to use a neutral tone, and my statement about the results on the Politifact page were accurate (i.e., "69% of them being rated as "half true" or worse"--I did not say "more than half of his statements are lies". I was very careful in how I worded the statement.). Indeed, I made sure to include the politifact rating scheme so that such a misinterpretation wouldn't be possible. Given this, I don't understand how it constitutes original research; I was merely trying to relay the information contained on the Politifact site. The alternative would be to post the entire politifact chart, which seemed like overkill to me, but I can do it if such is your preference. With regard to using Maddow as a source, I was unaware of a WikiPedia guideline on the size of viewership; is there such a guideline, and I just missed it? Further, unless there are any factual errors in Ms. Maddows statements, that puts them in the realm of fact rather than opinion, no matter what her bias. However, I am not in any way endeavoring to put forth a political agenda; I am merely trying to provide balance with the level of scrutiny being accorded Obama (as previously cited). Finally, I am perfectly willing to provide additional sources; I have quoted multiple sources from places such as New Yorker, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. If you take exception to one, I don't mind tossing it and finding another or, if such can't be found, deleting the section. However, I found no shortage of such articles, which is why I felt it was pertinent. As I stated above, one is from yesterday's New York Times. Of course it is your prerogative to edit as you wish; I disagree with your reasoning, however. (Frankly, I'm not surprised at your assertion that it is "hugely inappropriate"; I am well aware the the word "lie" in politics is a hot button; I felt it was appropriate, however, since that was the word the various sources were using. Or to put it another way, I was not relaying my opinion; I was trying to accurately relay that of the sources.)Dougom (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand--if disagree--with your reasoning for deleting the "lying" section, I'm confused as to why you eliminated the other editorial changes. I did some additional cleaning, as well re-titling the section (other folks disliked the section title), adding some additional references in the "advertising" section so that it was more clear that it pertained to the current and not just the primary campaign, and so on. May I ask why those changes were eliminated as well?Dougom (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Barack Obama 2012 election capaign does not have a controversy (Media Issues) section. It does not appear as it is going to get one either as is seems their POV is "Controversy sections attract controversy, which obvious creates a non-neutral POV. We shouldn't do it for any article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)" Why not follow the same standards across to avoid Wikipedia as being viewed as biased and having a non-neutral POV? 192.195.66.3 (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've noted several times, the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 does a section called "Controversies, allegations, and rumors during the primary campaign". Many other political figures have similar sections. I'm fine with moving it to the "Primary Campaign" page, if folks think that's a more appropriate place.Dougom (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are completely different animals. The BO controversy section is in place to beat back rumors or supposed lies and or inconsistancy in the BO's policy positions or statements. The goal here seams to be to push forward rumors and or supposed lies regarding Romney. The BO controversy section is actually a positive spin on Obama. If you want to do the same here, go right ahead. Arzel (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then work on improving the Barack Obama Presidential Primary Campaign 2008 article and let's leave this years election as Politically neutral as possible. Viewmont Viking (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many other major political and public figures have "Controversy" or similar sections--Dan Quayle has a mention of the "potatoe" incident, for example. It seems to be fairly common (and uncontroversial) across wikipedia. I must admit that I am fairly baffled as to why there is so much objection to having something similar here.Dougom (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that gaffes such as the potato incident belong in these articles. Whether a politician lying belongs just seems redundant and out of place. We wouldn't include a section on the Obama page noting how honest he has been compared to Mitt, would we? I hesitate to fault your NYTimes piece, since I suppose one could endlessly search for new ones, but I do want to note how buried the accusations of lying are in that piece. They only appear in its penultimate paragraph. If the NYT was making hay out of Mitt's lying, I would suspect it to be the thesis statement in their article. --A former Wikipedian 67.240.252.169 (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, It might be useful to check out Wasted Time R's comment on the Mitt Romney talk page. Not only does he provide a helpful analysis of this campaign page overall, he provides several Romney gaffes. I think these gaffes are closer in line with the Quayle example. --A former Wikipedian 67.240.252.169 (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think they're "gaffes" so much as out-and-out lies, but I'm not going to argue semantics; it's clear there's not a consensus. I do wish the bullying thing didn't get eliminated; that does seem very much in line with the Obama Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers stuff. But I'm not going to squawk too much about it.Dougom (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Move all endorsements to the new List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012 page

A separate page for List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012 now exists. Maintaining just a single page of endorsements would reduce the work for editors and make it easier to maintain a nearly comprehensive list (as opposed to some endorsements ending up being listed on one page but not on the other).

If there is no objection, all of the current endorsements listed on Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 should be moved to the new separate page. Dezastru (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would a sensible move, and consistent with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Endorsements.--JayJasper (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the "Battleground states" section?

What does this section have to do with being specific to the Romney campaign? It should be in the "United States presidential election, 2012" article, if anywhere.

And why does it only list polls that are favorable to Romney? Or is that a stupid question? :-)

My opinion: delete that section, it's too partisan and doesn't belong in this article. RenniePet (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpps/news/romney-remarks-spark-cookiegate-dpgonc-20120418-kh_19263956
  2. ^ Romney’s ‘Cookie-Gate’ Frosts Baker
  3. ^ http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/cookiegate-baker-couldnt-believe-romney-insult.html
  4. ^ http://thehill.com/video/campaign/222467-romneys-cookie-joke-prompts-cookie-gate-attack
  5. ^ http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-south/bethel-bakery-runs-cookiegate-special-after-romney-diss-631969/
  6. ^ http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/open-mouth-insert-foot-instead-of-cookie/
  7. ^ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/romneys-comment-sparks-cookiegate-democrats-add-it-to-foot-in-mouth-list/
  8. ^ http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/blog/morning-edition/2012/04/cookiegate-7-eleven-has-its-say.html
  9. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57414962-503544/trump-hosted-fundraiser-with-ann-romney-set-to-raise-$600k/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitt_Romney_2012_presidential_campaign&oldid=500325842"