This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement
Mitt Romney is part of WikiProject Brigham Young University, an attempt to write quality articles about Brigham Young University. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Brigham Young UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Brigham Young UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Brigham Young UniversityBrigham Young University
Mostly disinterested reasonable observer here. I just skimmed all and read about 50% of the article. Seems to me that half of what I read came straight out of the Romney 2012 "grassroots" office. Not saying he doesn't deserve accolades - he very well might - just saying the article reads like someone really badly wants people to have a favorable opinion of him. Pär Larsson (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. But in order for this kind of reaction to be helpful, the editors need specifics. What is in the article that shouldn't be? What is not in the article that should be? What deserves to be in the article but needs to be worded differently? Because without such specifics, your stance seems to come down to, "This article says some good things about Romney that are true. That shouldn't be done because someone might get a favorable impression of him as a result." Also, be sure you read, not skim, the "2008 presidential campaign" and the "Political positions" section, because they say some definitely-not-good things about Romney. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying the concern isn't real. By my count, since the article took its present form, there have been four or five commenters saying it's too positive towards Romney (50.10.57.75, 99.21.35.206, JamesMLane, Parjlarsson, and probably 76.173.194.214) versus only one saying it's too negative towards him (Anythingyouwant). But it's been very difficult to get specifics out of any of first group. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As a main editor on this article I'm paid a hundred times what you're paid to read it, thus my being willing to spend much more time on it ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I am not paid as much as the editor is to read as they are to edit, I found that this article is lacking in important information. Over-all the article is dense with unhelpful data. For instance, if I want to look up Mitt Romney's political positions, I might choose to go somewhere else that is not Wikipedia. Under political stances, Romney's social stances include: "Romney has been consistent in many of his political positions. However, Romney's position or choice of emphasis on certain social issues, including abortion,[97] some aspects of gay rights,[nb 11] some aspects of stem cell research,[nb 12] and some aspects of abstinence-only sex education,[nb 13] evolved into a more conservative stance during his time as governor." Apparently, Romney has some positions on everything. This section lacks in factual information. What are these positions that Romney takes? Although his positions on social issues have been described as "conservative", they say absolutely nothing about what he actually believes in. The editor should consider furthering their pursuit of information about Mitt Romney's stance on the social issues of abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, and abstinence-only sex education. Instead of saying "some", the editor should write about what exactly it is that Mitt Romney agrees with. Jabberwock07 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to look up all of Mitt Romney's political positions, I would think you might choose to go to the Political positions of Mitt Romney article, which you are directed to by the cross reference "For more details on specific Romney positions on many issues, see Political positions of Mitt Romney." But this main article itself also describes the ones you question: abortion in the same paragraph, same-sex marriage in a whole paragraph in the Governorship section, stem cell research and sex eduction each in their own 'Note' at the bottom. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although actually I realized that the abortion view change while governor is alluded to in several places but never actually described. I've done so by adding a couple of sentences to the governorship section.
I removed the olympics logo and suggest removing the Bain logo and BYU campus pic as well. Contrary to prior discussion on this page (archived here), WP:IMAGE states, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." I too would like more pictures in this article, but we'll just have to work a little harder. I've uploaded and included in the article a fair-use pic of Mitt with father George, which I believe would pass FAC3. —Eustresstalk15:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an Olympics image that is more directly about Romney, since it is specifically about the 2002 Winter Olympics rather than the olympics generally.
"Utahns have contributed $2 million to SLOC's license plate program and another $150 million in sponsorships and donorships Romney said", Deseret News, The (Salt Lake City, UT) - June 23, 2001.[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't believe a picture of an olympic license plate adheres to policy either. Perhaps a picture of Romney holding an olympic license plate, but not a license plate by itself. Fortuitously, I did some sleuthing and found an olympic pic of Romney to replace the license plate! Now can we remove the Bain logo and BYU campus pic as well? —Eustresstalk00:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good find, Eustress. The new photo is a bit better than the license plate photo. But I'd urge you to look at the photos in featured articles, such as Ima Hogg. That article includes images of buildings and art objects that are devoid of Ms. Hogg's likeness altogether. What's good enough for Ima Hogg should be good enough for Mitt Romney, no?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Are there any biography FAs with logos? A logo seems like too far a stretch to me. Regarding the BYU pic, why feature a pic of BYU (where he spent 3 years, I believe) instead of a pic of Harvard, where he spent 4 years? Even so, a university picture seems too generic. Thousands have attended these universities. Ima Hogg's article features her previous residences and a museum she designed -- much more directly related and unique to the individual, much more encyclopedic. —Eustresstalk14:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia allows a featured BLP to include a logo. See Edgar_Speyer#Financier. If we can further explore featured BLPs, you'll find that the images are often not as closely related to the subject as you're indicating. Both Romney and his wife (not just him) went to college at BYU, and lived on campus there, and he gave commencement speeches there. In contrast, we don't have a single pic that shows Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School and the neighborhood where Romney and his wife lived in Cambridge. If we find a more closely relevant pic for that section of the Wikipedia article, then more power to you, but in the mean time the BYU pic looks fine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eustress, good work on finding the Olympics pic. I searched for one in Flickr awhile back, but didn't find any under the right licensing. However, I am really doubtful that your fair use claim on the George and Mitt image will hold up. I couldn't use any such images in the George W. Romney article and really had to scramble for the ones I did. Indeed, during its FAC someone ran a OTRS on one of them just to confirm it was public domain. If fair use was allowed, that wouldn't have been necessary. Moreover, wire service photos such as this AP one have a special level of protection in fair use discussions – see WP:NFC#UUI point #7 in the Unacceptable use list: "A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." I've seen a fair number of wire service images tossed out. Finally, your statement that no free image can ever be found of George and Mitt together is a bit dubious, since they staged joint appearances during Mitt's 1994 senate campaign and it's quite possible something out there took a photo and will scan it in and post it on Commons someday. Don't mean to be negative, but if I thought George and Mitt photos from the Boston Globe series were allowable I would have added them a year ago! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a category which lists him as an American of Canadian descent; however, nowhere in the article is there a mention of any family or ancestral connection to Canada. Should the category be removed?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the statement that he has announced his presidency should be corrected to say that Mitt Romney has announced that he has formed an exploratory committee for the 2012 presidential elections. Source: NPR— Preceding unsigned comment added by • contribs) 00:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In practical terms, this is a distinction without much difference. In the 2008 race, for example, Hillary Clinton's only announcement was of an exploratory committee; she never made a traditional formal campaign announcement. Yet clearly she was running. Anyone who doubts that Romney is running hasn't been paying attention. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hillary simultaneously formed an exploratory committee while explicitly announcing her candidacy.[3] As far as I know, she's the only one who's ever done that. Pending an explicit announcement from Romney, he is not yet running for president, however certain we may be that that will happen. There was a recent essay at Huffington Post on this general distinction, titled "Campaigning Versus Exploring Versus Running". We should follow the sources. The cited CNN source quotes a Romney statement: "this step does not constitute a formal announcement of candidacy....". Let's not claim otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But we're a little silly to do so. See this LA Times story from yesterday. Legally, Romney is a full-on candidate: "'Exploratory committee' may have an official ring, but it carries no legal significance. ... The distinction between an 'exploratory' phase and an all-in candidacy may not be a legal one, but it serves a public relations strategy." Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the law doesn't say one way or the other if he's a candidate, then it would seem to be up to him. In other words, he has a right to explore however long he wants, as long as he doesn't go exploring in any of those places that we need not discuss further at this time. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exploratory committees are full-bodied campaign committees. Exploratory means "candidate". Hilary Clinton was the front runner and raised millions with her "exploratory" committee, and was a candidate in primaries, with her "exploratory" committee. Exploratory is a weasel term that allows candidates to announce again and again, and yet again that they are thinking hard about running, yes sir, thinking real hard, raising money, and just in case they raise several tens of millions of dollars, they just might, maybe, oh golly, be a candidate.
In the eyes of Federal election law, Romney is a candidate, whether he wishes he were not, or disclaims that he is not. The Federal election law is a good deal clearer on the matter than Romney's equivocating. The Federal Elections Commission does not recognize the term "exploratory" in its registration and reporting processes, and "exploratory" is not a distinguishing term for a presidential campaign, or its committee in any way from all of the standard requirements of reporting on candidate campaign activity. Such "exploratory" committees must attend to all of the standard legal requirements of announced candidates. The only distinction the FEC makes is between "testing the waters" efforts, where the candidate is not a candidate at all, not campaigning, not referring to herself as a candidate, not asking for votes, and not raising more money than might be sufficient for polling. Romney did not make a claim to be "testing the waters", and he is actively soliciting funds.
Quoting from the Federal Elections Commission's statement demarcating candidates from "testing the waters" individuals, Romney is clearly a candidate, especially as his committee is actively and publicly asking for money:
Certain activities, however, indicate that the individual has decided to become a candidate and is no longer testing the waters. In that case, once the individual has raised or spent more than $5,000, he or she must register as a candidate. Intent to become a candidate, for example, is apparent when individuals:
- Make or authorize statements that refer to themselves as candidates (“Smith in 2012”or “Smith for Senate”);
- Use general public political advertising to publicize their intention to campaign;
- Raise more money than what is reasonably needed to test the waters or amass funds (seed money) to be used after candidacy is established;
- Conduct activities over a protracted period of time or shortly before the election; or
- Take action to qualify for the ballot. 11 CFR 100.72(b) and 100.131(b).
Furthermore, the so-called "exploratory" committee has the same FEC ID number, C00431171, as the committee entitled "ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT INC." See the filing for 10/15/2010 and compare to the filing of January 15, 2011 and the registration indicating the name change on April 11, 2011. Although Romney disclaims his candidacy, he admits that he is required to register his committee for the 2012 cycle, has his activities fall within the requirements that all candidates must comply with, hence he must disclose the activity in reports to the FEC.
See the electronically filed letter by Romney dated April 11, 2011. In the eyes of Federal election law, Romney is a candidate, and we get to be informed of his activity as a fundraiser, and know who is authorized to act on his behalf because he has reported as much, as a candidate. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting original research, YellowDesk. Just out of curiosity, do you want to use Wikipedua as a tool to "out" Romney as a candidate, in order to deprive him of the public relations benefit of deciding and declaring for himself? Or do you want the opposite, but feel compelled by your original research to take this position which you intensely dislike taking?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is where the value of statements and potential inclusions into the article can be assessed, and that is what I supply here. Romney's "view" that he is not yet candidate does not align with the reporting requirements he is obliged to comply with, which evaluate his activity as a "candidate". The provided citations to published documents available to all, from a reliable authority are for all editors to contemplate. For the article, I can doubtless find more than a dozen of citations to additional media discussion of the perennial "exploratory committee" dance in previous presidential campaign cycles, to supplement the above citations to documents indicating where the Romney committee fits into that discussion's assessment. In general "exploratory" is a metaphorical fig leaf of no consequence. Citations to primary documents are acceptable to indicate and substantiate facts, which is why they are supplied, so editors can verify them. Romney cannot be outed, as he he is already "out," and has to report on his activities, since he actually is a candidate under the FEC law (and for all other intents and purposes)...as was Clinton for the many months her campaign was called "exploratory" in 2007 and 2008. You could look it up. The Romney explanation about how little consequence the term exploratory means from the FEC perspective, in 2007: Press Release: Governor Mitt Romney Forms Presidential Exploratory Committee, Wednesday, Jan 03, 2007 -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yellowdesk on the facts and merits of this matter; there's no original research involved. It's especially unfortunate that this article doesn't make clear that Romney is already running, not just "exploring", because several other high-profile possible candidates are by all accounts genuinely unsure of whether they will run (in particular, Huckabee, Palin, and Daniels). The reader who is somewhat unfamiliar with current political events may falsely think that Romney is in the same group with them, when he is not. That said, both Romney and Anythingyouwant are adamant about keeping to this "exploring" palaver. To my mind, it's not worth an edit battle, although I'll support changing the text if anyone else wants to push it. Yes, to the uninitiated the current text makes Romney look foolish (he's spent all this time since the end of 2008 without a job and preparing for another presidential campaign, and he still can't make up his mind!?), but one of my theories of BLP is that if the subject wants to look silly, it's not our job to stop them. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to cite a reliable secondary source that says he's unofficiallly running, or virtually certain to become an official candidate, then fine. But don't string together a bunch of statutory language and FEC forms to assert that he's already officially running. He's not, and the fact that he's not is meaningful. "Money raised through the committees may only be spent ahead of a candidate’s official presidential announcement."[4]Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Net worth of politicians (eg Trump, Romney, Huntsman, etc.) in infoboxes
Comment. The 'bizarre' consensus can be seen at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_8#Net_Worth.3F_Really.3F from 2008 and a confirmation at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_15#Net_worth_as_a_parameter in 2010. Your claim of censorship is silly; the article text clearly states the net worth of Romney ("As a result of his business career, by 2007 Romney and his wife had a net worth of between $190 and $250 million, most of it held in blind trusts.[49] Although gone, Romney received a passive profit share as a retired partner in some Bain Capital entities.[49] An additional blind trust existed in the name of the Romneys' children and grandchildren that was valued at between $70 and $100 million.[50]") and describes the funding he did of his senate, gubernatorial, and presidential ("Romney spent over $7 million of his own money," ... "Romney contributed over $6 million to his own campaign during the election, a state record at the time.[85][76]" ... "Romney spent $110 million during the campaign, including $45 million of his own money.[154]"). The question rather is one of editorial judgement about whether net worth deserves inclusion in the infobox. There are reasonable arguments both for and against this. One particular problem among the 2008 candidates was John McCain, whose finances have always been kept separate from his wife. On his own, his net worth was under $1 million, but hers was over $100 million. Neither figure, when put in the infobox, accurately conveys the situation and the editors never did find a satisfactory solution. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template:infobox says basically that--similarly to articles' ledes--infoboxes are designed to summarize article content. But, since the info is contained lower down in the article, there is no real harm in leaving it out up there at the top, I guess. Be that as it may, I STILL think that that consensus--to leave off mention of candidates' net worth up at the top--is waay overly prissy--- Hence my saying it seems pretty damn bizarre: after all, wp:BLP says well-known folks should have notable information about them stated neutrally and clearly, despite the mere possibility some folks might interpret it negatively. And politicians, of all folks, should be able to take it. Heck, that's why they're required to fill out financial disclosure forms that this information is culled from in the first place.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox and the lede are complementary, not similar. The infobox presents certain kinds of cut-and-dried facts in a standardized fashion, while the lede presents a capsule summary of the whole article. Look at Woodrow Wilson, to pick one example at random. If you just read the infobox and nothing else, you learn a lot of dates and names but come away knowing pretty much zilch about Wilson and his importance in history. For that you need the lede. Going back to the Romney case, even if the infobox gave his net worth, that wouldn't indicate its importance, which is that he's used it to help fund all of his political campaigns. And I realized that the lede didn't say this either. So I've updated the lede to give an idea of his wealth and to indicate its use in self-funding. As for whether to include net worth in the infobox, personally I'm sort of neutral on it, but there is an existing consensus against it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - on a case by case basis. For Mitt Romney, it is a large part of his persona and hence should be listed in the infobox and make it easier for readers to find. Other cases may be different so I would be adverse to this being used as consensus in all cases. BelloWello (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes aren't really about persona; the current infobox, for example, has lots of info unrelated to persona, such as kids' names. More generally, the less information an infobox contains, the more effectively it can summarize an article. If we were to include financial information, it seems like there are a lot of relevant figures aside from net worth, such as the amount used thusfar to self-finance campaigns, or the value of personal residential property, or the amount of charitable donations. Once we start, it's hard to know where to stop, especially if we do it differently for different candidates.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't talk about all those other things. The question is, should the infobox contain his net worth? I say yes, it is highly relevant and something that many people will likely come to the article looking for, and the first place they'll look is the infobox. BelloWello (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos. Loonymonkey's comment from the archive, "...in many cases, it has seemed to be motivated by something other than a simple desire to list as much information as possible," gives the jig up. No way something as pitch perfect a lampoon--of hyper-vigilant sensitivity typically shown by contributors to articles with an especially prevalent ethnic or political component--can be anything other than a joke. Do editors able to write scores of feature article-quality pieces really think we'll believe them anything but astute at how to handle political subjects? What really tips off the spoof is that arguments in the archives are just about unanimous. I mean come on, if Copernicus had said somewhere toward the bottom of his piece, "These observations can most simply be explained via heliocentricity but we know for sure that such an explanation can't be the case," we'd know, if the entire scientific community agreed, that they were in on the joke (it being only the rubes that otherwise would be grabbing pitchforks and torches that would take such a caveat at face value). Likewise, only those who would actually believe that a news article such as this in USA Today is an example of how the media have been co-opted (to unfairly paint all business conservatives as fat cats or something) could possibly believe such statements were meant to be taken seriously. These editors felt that trying for Wikipedia Hoaxes was too easy and wanted to create a supposed "controversy" believable enough to be inducted at Lamest Edit Wars. Meanwhile, the prank gets itself played over and over again with minimal further effort by its original perpetrators. When Trump declares his candidacy and his net worth becomes removed from his article's infobox, these editors will get to gleefully laugh among themselves no matter what the people coming to the talkpage do, whether they gasp at the absurdity or if they take the spoof argument as being intelligent or even if they are in with the joke and play along--no matter what, it's as funny as hell. Kudos to all involved.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Today piece you point to illustrates some of the problems with including net worth in the infobox. Romney's net worth was $190-250 million as of 2007, but that was before he blew $45 million on his campaign and before the 2008 financial collapse. Who knows what it is now? Huntsman's net worth is given as $11-74 million as of 2009. That's a pretty big range! If it's $11 million, he may think twice about funding his own campaign if he wants to have anything left over. If it's $74 million, different story. Infobox details are normally supposed to be exact: born this date, married so-and-so, held this office from this date to that date, held this other office, etc. Net worths are very inexact, in both amount and time. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My edit, of course, included a parenthetical "2007" after the cited figure, as is appropriate for all such data. Should Mitt enter the fray this cycle, that figure would change to citing his then-current, mandated disclosure, with its parenthetical dated 2011.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's success only appears to be because of its avoidance of fringe theory paranoia, when in reality it is because it cleverly promotes them. Surfing through the site, I discovered that whenever net worth is in somebody's infobox and they enter politics, that field suddenly becomes invisible. Why, I wondered? Because editors pretend to believe that readers are too stupid to handle such information without knee-jerk negative reactions beyond all pale of sense or reason. I was directed to where this standard was hashed out in the archives and it turns out -- wait for this -- it's due to John McCain's marriage to an heiress and editors were concerned people might take that badly. I kid you not. Silvio Berlusconi's net worth is contained in the lede to his article not his infobox; Donald Trump declares, poof! same thing happens--because readers might have seen the cold-hard data of McCain's net worth in his infobox and been dissuaded from voting for him in 2008.
But I don't for a second believe the editors arguing that point believe this. This is where the cleverness comes in. Do you really think that Cindy McCain's wealth did not become an issue during 2008 'cause of hyper-vigilance on the part of a handful of Wikipedians? That's ridiculous. These guys are responsible for scores of feature article-level bios among 'em and there is simply no way people smart like that could believe something that patently absurd. What is really going on is that these folks pretend to give such fringy paranoia heed. It's why Wiki editors are anonymous; a reporter or academic would experience negative consequences if they were to openly argue that public info should be squelched in the name of Readers-are-too-stupid. But they assume such a persona to appeal to the strong segment of the reading public prone to believe in that kind of outright hogwash. All the while these editors produce high-quality articles overall, which only leads one to accept the obvious fact that they are just faking it when they play their troll cards.
It's like when Louis C. K. asked Rumsfeld if he was a lizard person. C.K. doesn't believe in lizard people. But he's a comedian--it's part of his shtick to ask impertinent questions. But the sheer genius of such a gambit is that there are fringe people out there that adamantly believe in such stuff and through his question C.K. energizes them. And I've observed that that is what Wikipedia does with regard ethnic and political questions: it pretends to believe in "they are out to get you and me" worries--say, with regard to the simple reporting of publicly released info about potential public servants. And it's working. Wikipedia is one of the most-visited sites. Simply masterful.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC) strike text--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, I have no effing clue what you are talking about. The decision about whether to include net worth in the infobox is an editorial judgement. It may be wrong, it may be right, but it has nothing to do with anonymity (which I for one am not, by the way), fringe theories, or lizard people. The fact that this treatment may be inconsistent among biographical subjects in different occupations or nationalities is just another instance of WP's tendency towards glorious levels of inconsistency; I could name dozens of other differences more glaring. And there's a lot of other things we don't put in the infobox for politicians either: whether they are liberal/moderate/conservative, libertarian or statist, isolationist or interventionist, pragmatists or ideologues; their ACU or ADA or National Journal scores if in Congress; their election results; their favorability poll ratings; how many campaign promises they've kept versus broken; and so on and so on. All of which the average reader probably cares more about than net worth. If you want to find any of this good stuff out, you have to read the article. Is that so hard? There's an expression in the computer biz, RTFM, and it applies here too. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know how Jonathan Swift felt. Anyway, I'll cease and desist my attempts at humor, apparently my being the only one amused by the extent that editors who say they've adopted a stance of neutrality toward an essentially arbitrary stylistic rule nonetheless go to, to rationalize it or at least explain its provenance. --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change my !vote to Put in infobox. My parody aside, I think it's most elegant to allow this option, when appropriate. After all, my reading of the sacrosanct "effing manual" (which Wasted Time R extolls so vociferously...after, interesting enough, his saying that he remains neutral on the merits of the basic question in the first place) is that it cautions against editors being unnecessarily bound by the more temporal or situational of its pronouncements.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Structure improvements necessary to become feature article
The structure separating eduction is confusing to the reader. First two headings are too peculiar, picayunish, run-on, and not general and encyclopedic as they should be. Headings should not read like a newspaper. Structure needs improvement to become featured article. Collegiate education chronology should be together, not separated. Does not have to be part of Family life section. Secstions should be simply Early life and education and Personal life - or there should be no separation between the sections. Separating the collegiate education chronology and placing corny headings in two separate is less than feature article organization. The changes made are more appropriate presentation. Thanks. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Thanks for discussing here. The two headings in question are "Youth and early education" and "Missionary work, later education, marriage, and family". I don't see how these are "corny" and I've never seen a newspaper story title like these. As I see them, they are straightforward and factual. It's true that collegiate education chronology is usually together, because people usually do that in consecutive years. But for people who don't, forcing it together is artificial and destroys the flow of their life. Take Jill Biden, for example, which like this article is GA. The "Education and career, marriage and family" section has to be combined because her collegiate career starts in 1969 and ends in 2007, with two marriages and a family and several jobs interspersed between. To try to put all the college material together would distort the way her life has progressed and the fact that she's tried to continually improve herself professionally. Or take George McGovern, whose college career was interrupted by eventful military service. Both Romney and McGovern gained a new seriousness of purpose as a result of their interruptions; in Romney's case, he was an underachiever before his missionary work and a super-achiever after it. Readers can't get an appreciation for that unless the narrative proceeds chronologically. Similarly, Romney's 'personal' life is intertwined with his educational and professional ones. He left Stanford but returned to BYU because of Ann Davies, and in part he took the Olympics job because of her health problems. Whatever happens to a person in any part of their life at time T1 can have an effect on any other part of their life at time T2, and keeping the chronology as integrated as possible is generally the best way to handle a BLP at GA/FA level. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another example that is a featured article already: John McCain. There is no "Personal life" section, because the events of his personal life are intertwined with everything else. His first marriage ended in part because of his long time as a POW, and his second marriage (by virtue of his father-in-law) gave him entry into the Arizona political world. To try to separate that off would leave the biographical narrative impoverished of meaning. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The changes suggested improve the article and do not change the content. Separation of collegiate education is confusing to the reader. Stanford is not "early education" that's misleading. However, if you want to keep the narrative the way it is then there should only be one heading such as Personal background, or Personal life and education. The existing headings are indeed picayunish, peculiar, etc. Make these small changes and it would greatly improve.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your change put his Harvard years after his Stanford year but didn't move his BYU years in between them, leaving the chronology completely jumbled. Let's assume we keep the article text order intact, as I strongly believe we should, and we just want to modify the section headers. I think there's too much material for just one section here. And we can't have any section that says "Personal ..." because personal is spread throughout the entire article. On the other hand, I agree with you that "Youth and early education" isn't great as a title. I'm open to other suggestions. Since all but one year of Romney's collegiate education was later, we could just have "Early life" followed by "Missionary work, education, marriage, and family". Yes, the "Early life" would include the one year at Stanford, but thematically would still be appropriate since that was still the younger, callow Romney compared to the post-missionary more serious one. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Undent) I think the only significant thing that really should be changed here is the heading "Missionary work, education, marriage, and family". Both its location and its phrasing should be changed. As for location, it should be moved up one paragraph. As for rephrasing, that's a more difficult question. The section is kind of a hodgepodge. We could simply change it to "1965-1975" but that would be very different from the other headings. Or we could have something like "Between high school and management consulting", with or without subheadings. This uses the last thing in the preceding section, and the first thing in the succeeding section. Kind of elegant if you ask me. I'll be bold and make this change. Note that we already had a heading "Between presidential campaigns" so this is nothing new.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think your idea of moving the second heading one paragraph up has merit, but I have to say I don't like the heading name, because it doesn't describe what's in the section at all and because the endpoints aren't in the other section titles. "Between presidential campaigns" is different because the endpoints are contained in the other titles and because basically all that Romney was doing during that period was preparing for another presidential campaign. I've used your new division point along with my proposal above and called the sections "Early life" and "Missionary work, education, marriage, and family". Because WP articles do not have indices, the Table of Contents sometimes has to serve as one, and that's an advantage of these names over the one you suggested. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Education" in that heading is misleading. What you mean is "higher education" = "post-secondary education". People looking for high school or elementary school should not be forced to scour this section in vain. If you're concerned about heading length, then either change "missionary work" to "France" or alternatively use a between-type heading with subheadings, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "Missionary and university years, marriage and family", see how that feels. "University" is simpler to frame than "higher education". "Missionary", which always has a religious context, is more easily understood than "mission", which doesn't (could be military, general goal in life, etc). "Family" is important to add to "marriage" in my view, in part because it furthers guides the reader as to the section's content and in part because it's an important factor in Romney's life. In a sea of recent politicos who have yabbered about 'family values' but have multiple marriages, multiple divorces, affairs, sleazy affairs, children not speaking to them, etc, Romney is one of the guys who actually walks the walk. As for length of header, I don't care; there's plenty of whitespace to the right of the ToC. The important thing is to convey the section's contents. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ylee made this edit to say that Mitt only attended Stanford for two quarters, not a full year. And there are some web pages and a few news stories that say this ... but I tend to think they are wrong. By far the most in-depth account of Mitt's time at Stanford is in Part 1 of the 7-part Boston Globe series (which if the web gods are cooperating you can see here), where it gets 16 paragraphs and is based upon interviews with several of his former classmates. And at no point is there any suggestion that he spent less than a full academic year there. He started in fall 1965, he was there for week-before-Thanksgiving big football game, and he was still there in mid-May 1966 when the draft test sit-in and counter-protest was held (which you can read about here for example). The article has phrases such as "throughout the year", "as the year wore on", "after his freshman year", and "winding down his freshman year". Now, Stanford's quarter system runs roughly late Sept-early Dec, early Jan-early Mar, and late Mar-early June (a fourth quarter is summer school for those who do that), with each quarter being 10 weeks. Thus, three Stanford quarters is equivalent to a convention schools two 14/15 week semesters. There's no indication from the article that Mitt skipped the middle quarter, instead it talks about how he once drove nonstop from California to Michigan just to see Ann Davies, which seems unnecessary if he took an extra 10-week break back home.
The Barone piece that Ylee sourced has other errors in it (Mitt's missionary stint didn't begin in early 1966, but rather he did Utah orientation in June 1966 and sailed for Le Havre in early July; see here). The other stories and web pages that mention two quarters all look copied from the same underlying bio publicity material, which could well have been wrong. Some other sources, such as the Hewitt bio, say he was there for a year. I think the weight of the evidence favors a full year. Unless someone can come up with something definitive regarding 'two quarters', I plan on changing this back and adding an explanatory Note. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me; you make a very good case. The only cause of hesitation is that it's slightly unusual for a missionary to leave so soon after school ends (Romney must've been in the Salt Lake mission home almost immediately after finishing his spring quarter final exams), but I've known people who have done that, so it's hardly indicative of anything. Presumably at that time he planned to return to Stanford, and likely expected to start there at winter quarter 1969 after returning home in December 1968. Ylee (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response; I've changed it back, and added a bit more about the May 1966 counter-protest. I imagine a lot of Stanford students have to rush into summer activities, since those may often be scheduled with the expectation that college students get out in mid-May. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request from 72.37.171.100, 28 April 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There should be some information added to the comments on his appearance. While there is mention of 'clean cut', it fails to mention that he adheres to the Mormon tradition of wearing religious undergarmets at all times.
Believe it or not, the article could mention Romney's underwear. It's not known if he actually wears the ones specific to his religion but, be that as it may, this could be mentioned, should this become substantiated. It appears to have been a challenge for the media to word mention of this item in an appropriate fashion, for some reason, and maybe WP can plow the ground and show professionals how it's done with dignity and finesse: Use the formal name for the clothing in question. I/e better to call an observant Jew's prayer shawl or nun's covering just those things--or, in the former case, a tallit--rather than getting overly personal and specific: say, though specifying "an underlaid religious sash" (...or, it should go without saying, rather than going for pure bigotry by terming a nun's covering "a holy bonnet" or or whathaveyou). 'Tain't rocket science. So, if it becomes confirmed that Romney dons it, term it his "temple garment"?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My post above notes that it seems out of place to get all National Geographic about such things. That is, wrt today's Royal Wedding, we wouldn't obsess at length about the ladies' elaborate, feathered headgear and the men's light-grey felt tophats; rather, we might say simply that the ladies favored feathered millinery (if that turns out to be the case: I haven't turned on the telly) while many of the men arrived in their morning coats and hats.
IAC I'll Google this question about Romney and report back. ('Tho its pertinency has yet to be determined. Sure, within Madeleine Albright and Hilary Clinton's public image sections, maybe note their trademarks of conservatively retro skirt-and-jacket-with-pearl-eagle-pin for Albright and contemporary pantsuit-with-multi-strand, beaded necklace for Clinton--but there'd haveta be a lllllottttt of speculation out there to warrant mention of habitual scapular pendants of traditional crosses or even a contemporary W.W.J.D. monogram. Btw both are Christian--Albright, a Catholic-to-Episcopalian convert; Clinton, a pious Methodist.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I've come up with:
I know somebody who has seen Romney's underwear.[...]
On the eve of the 2002 Olympics, The Sun's Candus Thomson was one of a handful of reporters invited to dinner at Mitt and Ann Romney's Park City, Utah, home, a $5 million "cabin" on Rising Star Lane.
[... ...]
Thomson ended up in the one off the Romneys' master bedroom.
[... ...]Thomson, ever on duty, noticed a pair of underwear hanging on the back of the door as she reached for the knob to leave.
Not that she'd really care about her host's undies. (Assuming, of course, they were his and not somebody else's.) That is, unless five years later[...]TV talking heads were wondering aloud if he wore regular underwear or the Mormon kind[...].
My conclusion is that he doesn't wear them except when he's going to a Mormon temple. Maybe he doesn't want to draw too much attention to this aspect of Mormonism...or, politically--and personally--to his religion? Of course, I'm just speculating. I'm next Googling Santorum and crucifixes; after that, Lieberman and tefillin.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your assertion, at least one major media outlet has raised this issue. From this 2005 piece in The Atlantic by Sridhar Pappu (already used as a source in several places in this article):
"Do you wear the temple garments?" I asked uncomfortably, referring to the special undergarments worn by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (The underwear has markings denoting the covenants of the Mormon faith, and is meant to serve as a reminder of the high standards Mormons are expected to uphold. The rules governing its wear and disposal seem as complex as those pertaining to, say, the American flag.)
He answered, "I'll just say those sorts of things I'll keep private."
Comment - Within U.S. presidential history, heretical status toward the "left"-side of the religious spectrum (whether the candidate in question is on the political left or not: i/e Deism or Unitarianism) has been but a negligible impediment to candidacy, whereas the only Catholic elected--and he wasn't particularly religious--was JFK. So IMO it should be expected to see more and more questions about Romney's non-Protestant religion as time goes on (eg: R's polygamist family background; LDS eschatological beliefs as to whether the Christ's 2nd Coming will involve His return to the American continent instead of or in addition to His return to the Holy Land in the Middle East; whether the Garden of Eden was where Missouri is located now; any tendency for R's political opinions to align with those typical among LDS Church heirarchy; R's personal opinion when he was growing up with concern to his church's former policy of non-ordination of African Americans [R's civil-rights supporting father was known to want the policy to change, of course]; and so forth. However, you would expect the same treatment given to Chris Christie as a national candidate: would his kids continue to go to parochial school? would he hew to the Church's line conerning capital punishment as well as Christie's already-stated position of being pro-Life? Will he eat meat on Fridays? Probably Gore was asked at some point whether Tipper would allow R-rated (well, you know what I mean) music in the W.H. The question is how such candidates respond to these Q's. Christie would probably put the questioner and his audience at ease with a joke and then, depending on his mood or the situation, either subtly make fun of the question or else hold forth about generational change between his mother's generation of Catholics and his own after Vatican 2.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biased Article?
I believe that this article is quite biased towards Romney, especially with the line: "Moreover, with his square jaw, handsome face, white teeth, and full head of dark hair graying slightly at the temples, Mitt Romney looked like a president." That is just ridiculous. There are other examples that you can find as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinulf (talk • contribs) 18:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough to say "there are other examples as well", you have to list them out for your comment to be of any use to the editors. As for that one line that you do mention, you are confusing a fact about appearance with a value judgement or a prediction. It's a fact that a number of writers and political observers have said Romney looks like a president. That's relevant, since in America one's superficial appearance is always at least somewhat important. But saying this doesn't mean he should be a president or would be a good president if he won. It also doesn't mean he will be a president; people said the same thing about Romney's father, and so far between their two presidential campaigns, neither one has gotten past February. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This main article doesn't get into specific positions like that, unless they are central to his biographical story, which this one isn't. However the Political positions of Mitt Romney article does do that, and there is already an "Environment" section in it that covers climate change. However that section, like much of that article, needs updating for Romney's post-2007 views. Your contributions would be welcome there. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't hope this new idea catches on. This is we can't stay as we are now and we need a federal mandate. Shall I just distort his record back to truth by quoting his words verbatim? Hcobb (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I used the language "While Romney has not explicitly argued for a federally-imposed mandate, ..." He has never, to my knowledge, formally stated that he is favor of federally-imposed individual mandate backed by fines or tax penalties, such as is found in the PPACA. The 2005 quote you give (which is still used as a source in my edit) suggests that he thought the problem of the uninsured had to be solved somehow, but it doesn't explicitly say he wanted a federal-level individual mandate. (An alternate approach is simply to require that states come up with measures of some kind to meet a certain threshold of universal coverage, without stating what those measures have to be.) And if you look at this WaPo piece that I also used as a source, in 2007 he was saying, "I’m a federalist. I don’t believe in applying what works in one state to all states if different states have different circumstances...Now, I happen to like what we did. I think it’s a good model for other states. Maybe not every state but most, and so what I’d do at the federal level is give every state the same kind of flexibility we got from the federal government as well as some carrots and sticks to actually get all their citizens insured. And I think a lot of states will choose what we did. I wouldn’t tell them they have to do our plan..." I think that comes closest to accurately describing Romney's position at the time. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So let's quote him instead of interpreting him. Primary source is clear (as are the secondaries you reject for excessive truthiness), but either is better than Synthing ourselves. Hcobb (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should cherry-pick one quote from 2005 (before his plan had even passed at the state level) in preference to likely dozens of quotes he gave in 2007 and 2008 during his campaign. And in general, this main article is supposed to summarize and paraphrase, not be a quote farm. The quotes are better for the Political positions of Mitt Romney article, which can devote a lot more space to the matter. Looking at the "Health care" section there, it could definitely be improved, especially with regard to Romney's ideas and past statements regarding federal-level proposals. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Bility (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)