Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Todd Akin

See Todd_Akin_rape_and_pregnancy_controversy#Background. Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Why?--Mollskman (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Because of this, which could be added as a mention to the section about social issues. Cwobeel (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

An early proponent of this view [nb: the view espoused by Todd Akin on rape and pregnancies] is John C. Willke, a former president of the National Right to Life Committee and a general practitioner with obstetric training, who articulated this view in a book published in 1985 and in a 1999 article, and in an interview on August 20: "This is a traumatic thing — she’s, shall we say, she’s uptight. She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.” These assertions were disputed by a number of gynecology professors. Mitt Romney's 2007 campaign embraced Willke as “an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.”

Seems to break WP:SYNTH. Basically, you are proposing linking Romney to Akin because the former embraced Willke and the latter has a position shared by Willke? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not exactly. What I am referring is to add information about Romney's support for Willke amd vice-versa, as part of Romney's evolving position on abortion. Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Because this is the first time you mentioned it. It is kind of hard to pull that out of a topic title "Todd Akin" and a link to the Todd Akin article. Perhaps if you posted your suggested language here, we could better comment? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You know this kind of POV pushing really needs to stop. Romney has come out strongly against Akin, and this attempt to link him with him is really disgusting. Arzel (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Does not belong. This is a common political game: Candidate C once accepted support of, or said something nice, about fairly obscure person P. Then it comes to light that P has said stupid/crazy/offensive things. Now opponents attempt to tag C with all the views of P. Great for bloggers and cable yakkers, but this article should stick to what Romney has said himself. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what Romney said himself: "I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country. He knows how important it is to have someone in Washington who will actively promote pro-life policies. Policies that include more than appointing judges who will follow the law but also opposing taxpayer funded abortion and partial birth abortion. I look forward to working with Dr. Willke and welcome him to Romney for President." Cwobeel (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's boilerplate. You could substitute any other right-to-lifer's name in there and the rest of the wording wouldn't change. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Pure SYNTH. Let's leave it out.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 05:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, if it's undue synthesis then I wouldn't be able to find so many news articles about it.[1]. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement being edit-warred – "Mitt Romney's 2007 campaign embraced John C. Willke as “an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.”" – is not a political position. It's a support relationship. This article does not list every figure that Romney has endorsed or supported or that endorsed or supported Romney - that list would run into the thousands. So it's outside the scope of this article. If the 2007 support relationship in the context of the Akin matter ends up giving Romney significant flak in the 2012 election, then it should be included in the 2012 campaign article. But this article's scope should be limited to what Romney has directly said about issues. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your statement. Romney is saying that, on the matter of abortion, he believes as Willke does. That's not a support relationship, it's a revelation of his political position. Given how much his views on the matter have changed and how vague he often is about them, this clear statement is highly valuable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There is this also from John C. Willke Cwobeel (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In August 2012 during the Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy, Willke wrote a letter to Todd Akin in which he stated "It's time for Republican leaders to rise to the level of Rep. Akin's principle and courage and stand with him and the Republican platform that stands for the protection of every human life." Dr Willkie told the Washington bureau of the The Daily Telegraph that he met Romney during the latter's 2012 campaign, when Romney had praised him: "“He told me ‘thank you for your support – we agree on almost everything, and if I am elected President I will make some major pro-life pronouncements’."

Well, this is obviously important to Romney. The only problem is keeping it short. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The "almost everything" is the key. How about 99 percent? That's how much they agree, because only 1 percent of abortions are from rape and incest, the exception for which is where they disagree. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If we just quote it as is without further commentary, we will be OK. Cwobeel (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Vigorous crackdown

There's a section that's under attack.[2]

During the 2012 presidential campaign, The Daily Caller reported that a former Reagan-era Justice Department prosecutor who now heads Morality in Media had said he had been assured by the Romney campaign that there would be a vigorous crackdown on pornography if Romney were elected president.[3]

I'd like to know what the objection to it is and build a consensus here instead of an edit war there. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is kind of a borderline case. Normally you want to just stick to things Romney or the campaign officials has said directly. But here supposedly they're afraid to say it out load for fear of being ridiculed like Santorum was. So maybe inclusion is justified on that basis. The downside is that this guy could be engaged in some wishful thinking. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be heresay, and while I do not know of a policy that prohibits heresay from an article BLP policy does say we have to be careful. On BLP I would error on the side of caution. Viewmont Viking (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

heresay shouldn't be included, but this just isn't notable. --Mollskman (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing "borderline" about it. It's not Romney's position and it didn't come from anybody associated with Romney. Thus, it doesn't deserve to be included. I hope that helps. Belchfire-TALK 01:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that what is already on the article is more than enough to depict Romney's views on this matter. Cwobeel (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Without Trueman's testimony, I don't think we have anything about the promised crackdown. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Done without Trueman's testimony which is heresay we have nothing about the promised crackdown. Viewmont Viking (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that this is not a jury trial, so hearsay is entirely admissible. If you'd like to cite a Wikipedia policy that supports your claim, feel free, but I don't believe it exists.

I actually agree with your recent revert; that version was too direct. However, the last version I worked on correctly attributes this to Trueman. We should put that one back in. Do we need an RfC? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE is one you should follow. We don't use the ramblings of others to define the positions of someone else. If this is a position of Romney than there should be a source to say that this is a positon of Romney. Supposition simply has no place and is undue weight as well. Arzel (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, so an RfC, then? Ok. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge energy & environment sections?

There is a lot of overlap in the material dealing with Romney's positions on energy and on the environment. Should these two sections be combined into a single section? Dezastru (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

They were merged at one point, then someone split them out again. It makes sense to me to merge them. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

abstinence-only sex education

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Families_+_Children.htm As his term went on, Romney would make a series of shifts--in some cases wholesale reversals of past positions, in others significant changes in emphasis. After saying he opposed abstinence-only education, Romney adopted just such a program for twelve- to fourteen-year-olds, primarily in Hispanic and black communities. Source: The Real Romney, by Kranish & Helman, p.256-258 , Jan 17, 2012

Seems to agree with website of book:

http://www.harpercollins.com/browseinside/index.aspx?isbn13=9780062123275

Add? Hcobb (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read that source. And I haven't looked into this topic in depth. But from what I recall of having skimmed some related material several months ago, Romney's argument was that he never promoted "abstinence-only"; he said that he was backing funding for "abstinence-also" education. So a fair treatment of this subject may need to take that into consideration. Dezastru (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There's already a paragraph on this in Governorship of Mitt Romney#Education, that FLAYWIP and I wrote a while back. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems to be exactly what is needed to replace the current un-cited section. Hcobb (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Medicare

Why isn't medicare in this article? Or is it in here and I'm just too tired to see it?Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's there. "Health care" section. ViriiK (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that should be broken out. Medicare and general health care are different enough and have distinct enough funding that they each deserve their own section.Jasonnewyork (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. The article is long enough and should be concise. No point expanding it. Besides, medicare is a form of healthcare for 65+ people including those under 65 with disabilities. This is "Political Positions of Mitt Romney" so it's just best to summarize as small as we can on every position Romney holds. ViriiK (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that it deserves at least a subsection of its own under Health Care, but only if there is more material to be be added on the subject, as there are only 3 sentences on Medicare at the moment. The argument that the article is "too long" and shouldn't be further expanded is not very persuasive when there is an objection to trimming out a section on Family that says, "Mitt Romney has said that strong families are one of his three pillars, along with military and economy, for a strong America." Dezastru (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Romney described his medicare plan as virtually identical to Ryan's my suggestion would be to break out medicare and include the Paul Ryan plan as the platform. Agree? Disagree? Do we know anything else about his plan beyond that?Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That means nothing. You are basically inputting your own synthesis in order to make a connection between the two. As it stands, if there's more new information, then we can expand on it in discussion here but there isn't. ViriiK (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I did a pretty exhaustive search, and I think the information contained in the article is complete. We don't know anything more about Romney's medicare position at this time. I wrongly assumed that there had to more out there, but there doesn't seem to be at this point.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm still a proponent for creating a subheading for the medicare portion (even though it is only one paragraph), as it's not easy to find.Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney boasts that his policies no worse than Obama's on jobs?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jkZlhw01e4y2j5BgQnnv6ooEUfMg?docId=854b94a44cf0413ebf12ea79486268d8 Romney would have to nearly double the current, anemic pace of job growth to achieve 12 million jobs over four years. That's conceivable in a healthy economy. Moody's Analytics, a financial research operation, expects nearly that many jobs to return in four years no matter who occupies the White House, absent further economic setbacks.

How is it OR to point out that Romney is claiming that he can deliver about the same amount of job growth as already predicted to happen? (Of course there are plenty of economists who doubt this claim, but that's beside the point.) Hcobb (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Workfare

Going to the actual document in question...

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html The Secretary is interested in using her authority to approve waiver demonstrations to challenge states to engage in a new round of innovation that seeks to find more effective mechanisms for helping families succeed in employment. In providing for these demonstrations, HHS will hold states accountable by requiring both a federally-approved evaluation and interim performance targets that ensure an immediate focus on measurable outcomes. States must develop evaluation plans that are sufficient to evaluate the effect of the proposed approach in furthering a TANF purpose as well as interim targets the state commits to achieve. States that fail to meet interim outcome targets will be required to develop an improvement plan and can face termination of the waiver project.

Clear enough? Hcobb (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

POV & OR edit

Is this diff by Still both POV and OR? [4]. From my reading of the transcript there was no mention of Romney changing position, though it's possible I missed It. If Romney DID change his position this would be OR since it would require another source to state the previous position. In any case it certainly seems like POV as the wording seems to lead the reader that Romney is a flip flopper.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I just spent the last 15 minutes going through the sources and implemented some changes that more closely follow the sourcing. The use of the Obama current budget source is synthesis in it's presentation, so I removed that source, plus it is not needed as the information is already contained in the other sources. The problem is that you have the current 2012 budget of ~4.5% of GDP and the Obama proposed 2013 ~3.0% of GDP. Romney stated that he would like a floor of 4.0% of GDP and then stated to Gregory that he would like to keep the current 2012 budget (amount not stated). Under no circumstance is Romney advocating an increase (POVish) in defense spending from current levels. Additionaly he is not neccessarily changing his position (also OR and POVish). Arzel (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see you removed the OR/POV while I created this section. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR

This edit is clearly Original Research. Romney made no such statement, and the only way to come to this conclusion is to determine the actual meaning, ie perform original research. What is the general santion rule on removing clear original research? Arzel (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Put in Romney's exact quote, which you can verify from the transcript and the video. This is Romney's exact position on the non-need for authorization to commit acts of war. Hcobb (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Scope?

Belchfire removed some words, saying they were out of scope, so I restored them.[5] Scope can't be the problem here. Perhaps he thinks it's original synthesis, but that's easily refuted by citations. In short, I can't think of any legitimate reason to exclude this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of behaving badly, Belchfire has edit-warred by removing this a second time and refusing to talk about it. BRD doesn't work if you never D and always R. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The addition is well-sourced and relevant. It should be in the article.

Belchfire has been given a final warning about edit warring here. He should not revert this material a third time or the topic ban sanction will come down on him. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

My case for the addition is that the selection of a running mate is one of the few clear sources we have on the Political positions of Mitt Romney. Sequestration is an important topic on the campaign and Paul Ryan was one of the most important people in crafting it. Hcobb (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ryan wasn't his running mate at the time, and there's no reason to single out Ryan over any other congressional leader who supported the compromise. Furthermore, there's nothing unusual about running mates disagreeing in the past on some issues, so you cannot deduce Romney's positions by looking at Ryan's. Consider 1988, for example, where Dukakis and Bentsen disagreed on a number of issues. Indeed, in classical 'ticket balancing', ideological stance is one of the things that you may want to balance. This article should just focus on Romney's positions; Ryan's can be described in his article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not unusual, but it's notable. Consider Bush Sr.'s reversal on voodoo economics. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In the veep candidate's political positions article, yes you can indicate they did an about-face on issue X after they were picked. But in the prez candidate's political positions article, whether the veep candidate changed positions or not is irrelevant. In this particular case, the only thing that would be relevant here is if Romney suddenly supported the debt ceiling deal after picking Ryan, where before he hadn't. But that has not taken place. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. If anything, the careful omission of the fact that Romney opposes Ryan's plan strikes me as a bit artificial, kind of like avoiding the topic of polygamy. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the description "future" to describe Ryan as Romney's future running mate. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've expanded the Deficit section to better match the impact on the race. So go take a poke at it. Hcobb (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You are co-mingling things he said at the time in August 2011 with things he said over a year later, without making clear which is which. You also make it sound like the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the debt ceiling deal are two different things, each of which he opposed, when in fact they are one and the same. You also imply that Ryan was one of the congressional leaders who was active in forming the deal, which is unsupported by the sources given or the article linked to. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd include this source, but it's too primary.

http://paulryan.house.gov/news/documentprint.aspx?DocumentID=254795 “The Budget Control Act marks a positive step forward in getting government spending control, but much hard work remains.”

Hcobb (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What does Woodward's The Price of Politics have to say about Ryan's role in the Budget Control Act? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed judicial nominee text reffed and copied directly from mittromney.com

Figured I should report this [6] here, having removed it as a WP:COPYVIO.

Old text from wikipedia page: "he would nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law." Text from the mittromney.com ref [7]: "he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law."

I take no sides on including the content itself; I have no issue with anyone rewriting it appropriately. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the issue. This is an article of the political positions of Mitt Romney, I would say that Mitt Romney is the only reliable source regarding his political positions, furthermore it would be difficult to state his opinion directly and not be very close to the wording that he chooses. Much of what is in this article is from articles he has written, and his website is used in other places as well. In general you are correct that a self-published source is not acceptable, however, they are acceptable for personal statements of belief in an article like this. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I likely edited it to "appropriately" just as you were typing that. You're correct, his views can be reported as stated from his site just fine. Mainly, I removed rather than rewriting (or even just editing to quote) due to the blatant copying, and that I don't want to get involved in any possible disputes doing so. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

..and if I'm already here and discussing it, I may as well edit it back in since I'm watching this page now anyways! – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Tried to fix 'Style' problem

Something wrong with the 'style float right' template. Probably easy to fix but I couldn't do it. Stephen (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Cybersecurity

I removed the following because it takes Original Research to pull out of this that Romney was criticizing Obama's strengthening of America's cyber defense.

• Romney has criticized Obama's strengthening of America's cyber defenses in the wake of alleged cyberattacks by China during the Bush administration."Romney Ad on China Mangles Facts."

Not even Factcheck.org makes that connection from what I can tell and this is not a political position. The factcheck talks about China's currency manipulation and tries to make some strange connection to cybersecurity which Romney does not even mention. Arzel (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, if you read the link you posted, it quotes Romney as saying:

If Obama would stand up to China. China is stealing American ideas and technology — everything from computers to fighter jets.

See? Romney brought up stealing technology. Pretty obvious how the cyberattacks relate. But in case it's not, Romney draws the connection for us, so that we don't have to dabble in any undue synthesis.

The Romney campaign cites a report in the April 21, 2009, Wall Street Journal about a security breach of the computer systems containing information on the Joint Strike Fighter project, a weapon program under development by Lockheed Martin.

So, do you want to revert your revert, or shall I do it for you? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The inserted statement is synthesis of material. The ad is about China's manipulation of currency, we cannot use Factcheck's interpretation of Romney's ad to present a statement of Romney in Romney's voice. I have no intention of restoring clear synth and a very POV presentation as well. Furthmore I don't appreciate the attitude. Arzel (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Romney is clearly against cybersecurity.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/where-does-mitt-romney-stand-cybersecurity There isn’t much substance in this platform but there is a fair amount of condemnation. For example, the Republicans call Mr. Obama’s cybersecurity strategy, “costly and heavy handed,” and say that it will “increase the cost and size of the federal bureaucracy and harm innovation in cybersecurity.” It also claims that the President’s approach has been “overly reliant on developing defensive capabilities,”

Do you need other refs? Hcobb (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The above ref is not a RS and even then does not make a claim about his position on cybersecurity. Heck he even states he does not know what it is. Where is something that specifically states his stance on cybersecurity? You say he is clearly against cybersecurity, but I am not seeing it, and your source doesn't make that claim either. What I find most interesting is that Romney's biggest issues are cost and scope and you would think that the implications of the scope (ie implied government takeover of the internet in order to "stop" cybersecurity) would spark up the left as well. There is certainly nothing that says Romney wants to reduce cybersecurity, but I agree that he is critical of Obama's proposal, which the above RS also states isn't all that specific. Given the vagueness of this issue and the lack of any RS that are specifically discussing it, I do not see any valid reason for inclusion at this time. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the above ref is a reliable source, so the rest of your argument gets thrown out. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the above ref is a blog and opinion blogs are not RS for a policy position of another person, so you have no argument. Also, the above ref does not even back up the argument that was trying to be made so it is doubly useless. Arzel (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it's a WP:NEWSBLOG and if you read it then you'll find it supports Hcobb's edit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that when you link to a policy or guideline, do you seldom get it correct? Seriously, do you even read these before copy and pasting them into talk pages with reckless abandon? From the WP:NEWSBLOG: These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process. Now contrast that with the content of the NW blog entry. After poking around the web for several days, I’m still unclear what his position is here, so allow me to speculate based upon what I did discover. So the author is unclear as to Romney's position and is only going to speculate. So no, this is not an RS we can use, nor is it even an RS we should use even with attribution.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Mitt is running on his anti-Obama regulation platform and has brought up the issue of the F-35 files theft under Bush in his campaign ads. I don't see how it can be off-topic at this point. Is there some way to better indicate his stance that isn't terribly much longer? Hcobb (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

What I've learned from Arthur Rubin is that, when someone seems to resist a source despite common sense, it's often best to add a few more reliable sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So your implication is that I have no common sense? You do realize that WP:CIVIL applies to the sanctions as well. Arzel (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that's your inference. My direct statement is that some resistance to sources is inconsistent with common sense. Try not to create drama by taking everything personally, ok? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding up additional refs here, until it reclaims space on the page.

http://fcw.com/Articles/2012/09/05/Republican-Democrat-cybersecurity-platforms.aspx?Page=2 The Republican plank also doesn't say anything new, but we know what they propose won't work,” Lewis said, noting that the Republican references to deterrence and information-sharing, among others, are particularly troublesome.

Hcobb (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That source still does not back up the statement you were trying to make. Arzel (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

What you just said appears not to be the case. You would need to explain. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is an absurd statement. To put it into easier terms it is like saying that Obama wants to clean the house, but Romney does not agree on the method to clean the house and then say "Romney is critical of Obama wanting to have a clean house." That is synthesis of the material. No where has Romney stated that he is against cybersecurity. Arzel (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a fine example of a relevant reliable source. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

How the plan works.

I reverted an edit that removed material while requesting expansion.[8] It seems more sensible to leave the material in place. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that you have reverted an edit that makes a claim that Romeny did not make, plus you used a WP:WEASEL word at the same time do you not? I suggest you revert the BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If it's really a BLP violation then you ought to immediately revert it. However, it does not appear to be one. Instead, I see that each statement is cited, so I'm going to have to ask what you're thinking. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

So apparently you reverted the information without even reading the source, which really begs the question why you made the edit in the first place. However, here is the relevant information.

From this article-

• Romney claims that on average, 15,000 jobs were created each year when he was governor of Massachusetts.

From the source-

• Earlier in the debate, Mr. Romney said he had created more jobs in Massachusetts than President Obama had in the entire country. Since he did not provide figures, the basis for his claim is unclear. But in 2011, nearly two million jobs were added nationwide. During Mr. Romney’s term as governor from 2003 to 2007, employment grew by about 60,000 jobs, or 15,000 a year on average, according to The Associated Press, which issued a fact-checking report when Mr. Romney boasted of his job-creation record during a debate in September.

Now, you tell me how in the world you can state that Romney made that claim when all he said was that he had created more jobs in Massachusetts than president Obama had in the entire country. Arzel (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, how do you know ISS did not read the source?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

ISS said that the statement was cited, however if he had read the source he would clearly see that it is synthesis of material. I also see that he has not responded here, but has responded on other articles. I think it is time to remove the clear synthesis. Arzel (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, despite what you said about BLP and then WEASEL, the actual problem here is that we shouldn't attribute that figure to Romney because it's an uncontroversial matter of public record. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think this is a BLP issue, then immediately remove the material with an appropriate edit summary and then take it to BLPN. If they disagree, the infomation can be restored.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. In fact, it's what I said earlier. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the statement not backed up by the source as shown above. Arzel (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is synthesis.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Update citation #197

Citation #197 leads to a general page on Alternet, not to the specific news article (re: Guantanamo Bay) that it purports to cite. Here is a link to that article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/16/us-usa-politics-security-idUSN1643009820070516

Please fix the citation. Thanks!

Drew.h.chapman (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Media reports

Re this recent addition to the "Agriculture" section:

During the 2012 presidential election campaign, Romney took positions on agricultural subsidies that some media reports characterized as vague and somewhat contradictory.

It's better to avoid this kind of weaselly metacommentary. Just describe the positions he's taken, and let readers decide for themselves if they are vague or contradictory. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite. Dezastru (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Chronic Lyme disease

I added a bit at the end of the 'health care' section that 'In September 2012, a mailer from the Romney and Ryan campaign indicated they favored a law regarding Chronic Lyme disease that will provide "physicians with protection from lawsuits to ensure they can treat the disease with the aggressive antibiotics that are required."', with two citations. If anyone has any issue with the reliability of the sources, can we look for better ones? Bearian (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not immediately clear how opposing Obamacare but supporting tort reform can be seen as being strong against Lyme disease. Do we have any responses to this odd claim? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I should add that, while treating Lyme with antibiotics is normal, the notion that there is a chronic version which requires ongoing antibiotic treatment is somewhere between fringe and minority. So supporting a law that encourages such ongoing treatment is of questionable value. We should therefore not mention this without balancing sources. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, the mailer says nothing about "chronic Lyme disease" per se, so inclusion of the citation to the article by Helmuth is hard to justify. The mailer also does not specify exactly what "aggressive antibiotics" entails, so we would be speculating to say that by that they mean antibiotic treatment beyond what is accepted by most practitioners as the standard of care. (Yes, I can read between the lines and see how that inference about a longterm antibiotic course for chronic Lyme disease -- which, yes, is fringe -- makes sense, but it would not be quite fair to imply that that is the only reasonable interpretation of what the mailer says.)

Also the mailer did not specifically say that they "favor a law regarding chronic Lyme disease that will provide physicians with protection from lawsuits to ensure they can treat the disease with the aggressive antibiotics that are required." Rather, it said they [plan to promote policies that would]:

SUPPORT TREATMENT

Encourage increased options for the treatment of Lyme Disease and provide local physicians with protection from lawsuits to ensure they can treat the disease with the aggressive antibiotics that are required.

Sure, we can read between the lines and deduce that perhaps they do favor legislative action (ie, a law) specifically targeted at Lyme disease management. But an alternative interpretation of the info in the mailer could be that their approach would involve promoting measures such as tort reform in a very broad sense (not specifically having anything to do with these particular patients), appointment of judges with a particular philosophy of jurisprudence who would tend to rule in any lawsuits in a different way than has been the case, and ordering high-level changes (through appointments and changes in the interpretation and enforcement of agency rules) in the authority of government agencies involved in health care, such as the CDC, FDA, and Medicare. So if the info about the mailer is included, it would probably be safer to reword it more conservatively, perhaps along the lines of: "a mailer from the Romney-Ryan campaign indicated that they would seek to 'encourage increased options for the treatment of Lyme Disease and provide local physicians with protection from lawsuits to ensure they can treat the disease with the aggressive antibiotics that are required.'"

My sense is that this says more about the campaign's use of micro-targeting than about its health care policy proposals. Perhaps Wikipedia's mention of this mailer should focus on that aspect, rather than on the healthcare aspect (eg, include in the 2012 campaign article a section saying that they used micro-targeting, including sending a mailer out targeted to Virginia voters who might be concerned about Lyme disease)? I haven't done a search to see if there are any other sources out there that are discussing the mailer, but if there is only the Weekly Standard article, it may be hard to convince other editors to include any mention, as yet.

Incidentally, why doesn't that article say anything about Romney's position on tort reform? Has he discussed it during the campaign? Dezastru (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm confused. It doesn't seem as though the article, which does say "chronic", is correct. I still don't see how tort reform would help, though. Are doctors refusing to treat Lyme disease out of fear of lawsuits? Lyme in specific? This just doesn't make any sense.

If you read http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/09/29/930901/the-dangerous-conspiracy-theory-behind-mitt-romneys-lyme-disease-mailers/, you find that it explains some of the confusion, but not in a way that makes Romney seem, you know, honest and sane. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed the original research. Arkon (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Or, to be more precise, you removed an accurate summary of what the the Slate and HuffPo articles said, thus violating NPOV. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Showing, once again, Huffington Post and Slate are not reliable sources. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, the mailer itself does not refer specifically to "chronic Lyme disease." It just discusses Lyme disease generally. So the statement in the WP article, if this material is to remain, should not refer to chronic Lyme disease, and the citation of the Helmuth article seems inappropriate.

StillStanding, that very helpful Thinkprogress article that you linked to helps explain what is going on here, especially if read in combination with a second article which the Thinkprogress article itself links to: "Mike Farris and the Lyme Disease quacks behind Loudoun’s 'Initiative.'" Also take a gander at page 11 of the final "Report of the Virginia Task Force on Lyme Disease," issued June 30, 2011. If the information in those articles is to be believed, Michael Farris is a politically very well-connected conservative in Virginia (ran for lieutenant governor 20 years ago, has been appointed by the current governor to different positions, etc) who is convinced that his wife and children have chronic Lyme disease. He not only got himself appointed by the governor to chair the Virginia Task Force on Lyme Disease but also managed at some point to arrange a meeting with Romney (photo in one of the articles). I am even more convinced now that this info about the mailer does not really belong in the political positions article. It would be more appropriate for the 2012 campaign article, if anything. Dezastru (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like both: he's taking this bizarre, anti-scientific political position in order to get this guy's support during this campaign. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Government will pay for people who chose not to buy insurance

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html “We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack,’  ” he said as he offered more hints as to what he would put in place of “Obamacare,” which he has pledged to repeal. “No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.”

Exact quote from Romney via a RS.

All three options he names are of course from the government either through tax credits, direct payments, or indirect subsidies of hospital emergency rooms. So what was wrong with my summary? Hcobb (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: it's not a "political position of Mitt Romney". It's just Romney's observation of the status quo ante that's been spun in an attempt to make him look bad. I hope this helps. Belchfire-TALK 18:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Added more context from the same source that shows that Romney would replace the personal responsibility to get coverage under Obamacare with a big government bailout of the uninsured. Hcobb (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Charity is not from the government. You show a very biased view of the role of government if you believe this. I know many doctors, and if you told any of them that the charity treatment they give is really from the government they may very well smack across the side of the head. Arzel (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No "Criticism" section?

Jeez, Louise, what an utterly uninformative article. Easily the most widely noted single item about Romney's political positions and policies is that he has a long record of shifting and even completely flip-flopping on them, and that it continues even today. Might this not so trivial fact be worth its own section? -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The idea of these "Political positions of ..." articles is that they present the positions of the person involved without editorial comment. Positions are included over time, so if you see the person taking stance A in one year, stance B in another year, and now stance C, and all three stances are contradictory, then you the reader can draw your own conclusions. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I would propose a number of pages on this subject, which are constantly changing, with special text that allows them to flipflop constantly.190.141.37.45 (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In terms of specifics, most of what he was suggesting already has been done

http://www.stripes.com/news/ex-defense-secretary-robert-gates-discusses-iran-syria-potential-military-budget-cuts-1.193095

Surely a RS on the issue, so can we just note that Romney's position is to agree with Obama? Hcobb (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Belchfire-TALK 04:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we tell the reader that Robert Gates says much of what Romney suggests for the military has already been done by Obama. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

investments in the auto industry for green technologies

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney&curid=10001590&diff=517994428&oldid=517993515

From looking at the source my take on it was that Mitt was going to retrain the auto workers to work in green tech jobs outside the auto industry rather than within the auto indstry. (However a more detailed source could clear this up, one way or another.) Hcobb (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Fact-checking

We either need fact-checking references or a disclose we're practitioners of the "stenographic school of reporting". I'm not suggesting other views and opinions be included, which have no place in this article, just fact-checking. Otherwise, this is simply an extended campaign brochure. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Flip-flopping on the Raptor

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ac80b8f61-26e7-4939-85aa-de764aeaca21

I've lost track of the policy changes on this. So remove the F-35 stuff now? Hcobb (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Automotive industry - again

Thomas Paine1776 is reverting to a version of the automotive industry section that has several problems.

Previous version:

During the 2008 presidential primary campaign, Romney had distinguished his prescription for the automotive industry from rival candidate John McCain's by calling for $100 billion in federal stimulus funding over five years to support retraining of automotive workers and to help promote the industry's transition to a green tech economy. As the automotive industry crisis of 2008 arose amidst the near collapse of the private-sector credit market and banking industry in late 2008, Romney argued against a bailout with direct government loans of the auto industry. He proposed that struggling auto manufacturers should undergo managed bankruptcy, after which they should seek loans from the private-sector credit market with government-backed loan guarantees. Writing in an op-ed article published in the New York Times in November 2008 (his original title had been "The Way Forward for the Auto Industry" but the editors published the article under the title "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"), Romney said, "If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye." The Obama Administration ultimately implemented a managed bankruptcy reorganization of the General Motors and Chrysler corporations in combination with the direct government financing that Romney had opposed, after which Romney said that he deserved credit for the auto industry's recovery.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, Romney criticized the Obama Administration for holding General Motors stock for longer than he thought prudent. He said that the government should sell its General Motors stock holdings quickly and should seek alternatives to what he called excessive automotive industry regulation. He also said that fuel economy standards should be determined by market forces rather than by government mandates, and he called electric vehicles “a technology that people aren’t interested in.”

version preferred by Thomas Paine1776:

Mitt Romney supported government backed loan guarantees to private sector investors rather than a bailout using direct government loans. Romney wrote an op-ed in The New York Times on November 18, 2008 (Romney's title was "The Way Forward for the Auto Industry" but The New York Times changed it to "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"). In that 2008 op-ed, Romney argued against a government bailout for the auto industry to support a merger request. He wrote, "If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye." Romney believed that the managed bankruptcy should be accompanied by federal financing guarantees to private sector investors backed by U.S. Treasury Bonds, instead of direct government loans. During the 2008 presidential primary, Romney expressed support for $100 billion in federal funding over five years for investments in the auto industry for green technologies.

During the 2012 Presidential campaign, Romney criticized the Obama administration for holding onto General Motors stock and for what he considers to be excessive regulations on the auto industry. Romney stated that he would sell the government's stock holdings in GM quickly and seek alternatives to what he considers to be excessive fuel economy regulations on the auto industry. Regarding the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations, Romney advocates for a market-driven approach, rather than government mandates, as a means of encouraging fuel economy increases. Romney also said that electric vehicles are “a technology that people aren’t interested in.”

Issues:

1. Thomas Paine1776's version does not follow the chronologic organization that the rest of the page generally respects. Romney called for $100 billion in federal funding for the auto industry during the 2008 presidential primary campaign (ie, by Jan 2008); his views on the bankruptcy proposal did not become news until after the general election (Nov 2008). The previous version of the section in this article mentions Romney's $100 billion proposal chronologically and as background for his later proposals concerning bankruptcy. This approach follows the source (David Graham, "A Short History of Mitt Romney's Views on the Auto Bailout") that is cited by both the previous version of this WP article and in the version preferred by Thomas Paine 1776.

2. Thomas Paine1776's version states the same thing twice concerning Romney's position on the bankruptcy. "Mitt Romney supported government backed loan guarantees to private sector investors rather than a bailout using direct government loans” is followed four sentences later by: “Romney believed that the managed bankruptcy should be accompanied by federal financing guarantees to private sector investors backed by U.S. Treasury Bonds, instead of direct government loans.” This kind of repetition in a paragraph of a mere five sentences is poor form. The previous version of the section conveys the same information without the redundancy: "Romney argued against a bailout with direct government loans of the auto industry. He proposed that struggling auto manufacturers should undergo managed bankruptcy, after which they should seek loans from the private-sector credit market with government-backed loan guarantees."

3. Thomas Paine1776's version says that Romney believed the federal loan guarantees should be backed by U.S. Treasury bonds, but none of the sources provided mentions U.S. Treasury bonds. While it may very well be the case that it was understood by the parties involved that Treasury bonds would be used, WP shouldn't make that assumption without verification. (And if the term "federal financing guarantees" invariably implies that U.S. Treasuries will be used, then there is no reason to mention U.S Treasuries.)

4. Thomas Paine1776's version includes a citation of an article (Mike Ramsey, "GM-Chrysler Merger May Cost 74,000 Jobs, Report Says," Bloomberg) that describes management consulting firms' estimates of the effects of a merger that was being considered by GM and Chrysler in October 2008 and that notes that one of the management consulting companies, Grant Thornton, said that 'a merger would be impossible without an infusion of cash.' The article also says that governors from five states, including Michigan and Ohio, wrote to Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke requesting immediate financial assistance for the auto industry. While the Bloomberg article provides information that may be useful as background for the WP section, its use as a source for the statement with which it is associated in Thomas Paine1776's preferred version is inappropriate. The statement in that version says, "In that 2008 op-ed, Romney argued against a government bailout for the auto industry to support a merger request." The Bloomberg article does not even mention Romney, and by the time the auto industry executives were testifying before Congress, and Romney's op-ed was being published, a merger was no longer being discussed in most of the news media coverage of the bailout proposals.

5. Continuing from the previous point: the version preferred by Thomas Paine1776 says, "In that 2008 op-ed, Romney argued against a government bailout for the auto industry to support a merger request." Nowhere does Romney mention a merger request in his op-ed piece.

6. Anythingyouwant has argued repeatedly for inclusion of a link to the WP article on GM's bankruptcy proceeding, and for a statement in the section saying that the Obama administration ultimately carried out managed bankruptcy. These were included in consensus in the previous version. Thomas Paine1776's version has removed the wikilink and the statement that the Obama administration forced the auto industry recipients of federal financing through bankruptcy.

7. The information in the second paragraphs of both versions is nearly identical. The main differences are in phrasing. Thomas Paine1776's version includes redundant statements about "what he considers excessive regulations," corrected in the previous version. It also begins a sentence with the clumsy formulation: "regarding the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations." And it offers no help for readers who are not familiar with the concept of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations. The previous version avoids use of that technical term, instead using the more common term "fuel economy standards" with a link to the WP article on Corporate Average Fuel Economy.

8. The version preferred by Thomas Paine1776 violates WP:SURNAME. Dezastru (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed items you mentioned. (Romney did say backed by Treasury bonds though, it can be documented in subsequent interviews). The section should be about Mitt Romney's positions, not of those of others. The lead sentence is not a repeat, its a lead sentence for clarity. There is no wiki rule for a certain chronology. The source doesn't say stimulus, nor did Romney say he supported 'stimulus' for the $100 billion, so that phrasing should not be included. Not sure what you are referring to with surname, there are no surnames or titles in the section.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki rule is that if an article has an established pattern for presenting information, new edits should be made to conform to the existing pattern rather than to introduce a new pattern. You have not shown why organizing the information on Romney's automotive industry positions should not follow the established chronologic ordering for the page.

Your version of the section uses the word "bailout" three different times, and, as I previously noted, restates almost the same line in a paragraph that is only five sentences long. This is unnecessary, and clumsy. Similarly, in the second paragraph, you refer to what Romney considers excessive regulations twice. Why not accept a version that states each of these points effectively a single time, rather than a version which seems to have been cobbled together haphazardly or that is trying too hard to force a specific narrative?

It is true that a merger of GM and Chrysler had been discussed several weeks prior to Romney's op-ed being published. However, by the time he had published the article, the possibility of a merger had largely been discounted in most of the major media reports. (To my knowledge) the company executives did not testify about a merger before the House or the Senate. Romney said nothing about a merger in his op-ed. I haven't seen any interviews in which he mentioned his opposition to a merger after publishing his op-ed. So to introduce the concept of a merger in the way you have phrased the section is misleading: "In that 2008 op-ed, Romney argued against a government bailout for the auto industry, which at the time included a potential merger discussed by the auto chief executives.[14] He wrote, 'If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.'"

I do not share your view on use of the term "stimulus," but I won't disagree with your objection to its inclusion.

You have not explained why you have removed the Wikilinks to additional information on the restructuring plans that were subsequently carried out.

You have included a link to a Detroit Economic Club blurb mentioning Romney's having addessed the Club in January 2008, but the link does not contain any information verifying the sentence with which it is associated (that sentence reads, "During the 2008 presidential primary, Romney expressed support for $100 billion in federal funding over five years for investments in the auto industry for green technologies."). The link is inappropriate and should be removed. Dezastru (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Graphical timeline?

Would it be helpful to include a simple graphical timeline, at the start of each subsection, showing (synopses of) position statements vs time?

It would make the reading less tedious and, at the same time, orient and provide introduction as well.

Various graphical timelines are displayed helpfully throughout WP (see, e.g., this list of some Wikipedia's graphical timelines), many using the the Include template or EasyTimeline syntax extension. Does anyone have particular format suggestions?

Thoughts? Dorkenergy (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone ruined the whole article "RU Retarded" it begins.

Where is the lede for the article? It is gone! Instead, it begins

UR retarded

"During the 2012 presidential election campaign, Romney took positions on agricultural subsidies that some media reports characterized as vague and somewhat contradictory."

Can someone fix this and then toss the offender? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's been done, and the editor responsible has been warned. See [9]. This is the only edit that editor has made, and I'm guessing he's a sockpuppet who gets his jollies from being a serial vandal. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done THANKS! I wonder if the nut gives equal time the the Democrat candidate(?) Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

TOC indicator OR a Table for changed positions

The introductory para states:

Some of these political positions have changed, while others have remained unchanged.

To highlight changes, should each TOC entry be tagged/flagged in some way, e.g.:

• position changed (aka position evolution noted)
• change controversial during primary campaign
• change controversial during presidential campaign

Another indicator could indicate the date(s) of change, e.g., with major markers such as:

• campaign for governor
• 2008 primary campaign
• 2012 primary campaign
• 2012 general election campaign

Mechanisms? Suggestions? Dorkenergy (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Dorkenergy, why not prepare a draft example and post it here or on your user Talk page so that other contributors can see what it would look like once implemented? Dezastru (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Dezastru, thanks for the prompt. I moved development of examples and supporting rationale to my talk page. As of this writing, my proposal is:

Δ<2012 to indicate Δ prior to 2012 primary campaign

Δ2012p to indicate Δ during 2012 primary campaign

Δ2012g to indicate Δ during 2012 general campaign

"unclear" to indicate position unclear

with a legend indicating the above and a brief description to the effect of "positions where (arguably) substantive changes have been documented". Obviously, the legend and the description need work. Thoughts?

Working through the first few TOC entries with that system yields

1.1 Agriculture       Δ2012p, unclear

1.2 Automotive industry        Δ<2012

1.3 Budget

1.4 Campaign finance            Δ<2012

1.5 Defense spending levels

See my talk page for rationale for each of these choices.

Dorkenergy (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

However this is all vastly OR. Mitt claims to have always believed the same things, even if he inartfully sometimes stumbles and reveals how he really feels about humanity. Hcobb (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hcobb -- thanks. If we accept your second sentence at face value, there is a conflict with the last sentence of the Intro para, as quoted above: "Some of these political positions have changed, while others have remained unchanged." What Mitt claims now to be true is not governing here -- there is substantial reputable documentation cited in the various article sections of changes, clarifications, narrowings, elaborations, refinements, as well Mitt's current claims about his prior claims.

The "Some of these …" statement is a general statement. Without further direction, given the volume of this article, it is woefully inadequate. My attempt here is to help direct the reader to sections where reasonably attested claims of change, etc., have been made by reputable sources. The reader can refer to the indicated citations and elsewhere to discern the value/weight/etc. to place on claims by opposing camps.

Do you (or anyone else) have any specific comments/criticisms re the merits of any of the above examples? (Please see my talk page for the rationale I employed.)

An alternative to adding an indicator would be to gather and repeat the relevant info for each "change" sub-issue in a table at the bottom of a section. This would be of value, in particular, if statements on a given sub-issue are separated by intervening events regarding other sub-issues. So, for the "Automotive industry" section, if we don't want to change the "story" timeline of the 1st para, maybe we could gather and repeat the relevant info for each "change" sub-issue in a table below -- e.g.:

Issue	Statements re positions
Jobs	In a January 14 speech, he stated, “I’m not willing to sit back and say, ‘… Too bad for the people who’ve lost their jobs. They’re gone forever.’"[11,12] In referring to his proposal for managed bankruptcy, he said "[i]t would permit the companies to shed excess labor … ."[15]

That would allow readers to more quickly discern for themselves the existence, nature, and extent of any "change".

Hcobb -- does that satisfy your objection? Dorkenergy (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Dorkenergy, I can see you've put a lot of thought into this. However, I think you would face a lot of opposition from certain editors who would interpret these changes as 'highlighting' changes in Romney's positions as part of a partisan attack inconsistent with WP:NPOV. (You might have an easier time introducing one of these proposals if you did it after the election is over.) Then there is the fact that, as Hcobb noted, Romney and his campaign invariably deny that he has actually changed any positions, except for his public policy position on abortion, so some may feel that WP should give equal time to mentioning each Romney denial of a change for each position, which would further enlarge the article. And perhaps most important, while the goal should always be to make getting information easier for the reader, I'm not sure that the proposed mechanisms for indicating changes do that. The table would come closest, but tables often do not offer enough space for inclusion of descriptions of the context in which Romney statements need to be evaluated. Although the assumption is often made that a position has been changed out of political expediency, sometimes a change may be warranted as a prudent response to changing factors in the economy or technologic advances or judicial rulings, etc, so a changed political position doesn't necessarily mean an inconsistent political orientation; yet a table format generally doesn't allow for presentation of that kind of nuance. Dezastru (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Dezastru -- thanks; will consider. In the meantime, a question: I see several sections are parsed to a x.x.x level. The readability of other sections can be similarly improved -- e.g., Agriculture. There, the first two paras deal with "Investment in agriculture", the third with "Ethanol", and the fourth with "Crop Insurance". Do you see any problems with that? Dorkenergy (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Romney criticism of Obama as policy position?

Such criticisms are not "policy positions" and, not being such, their inclusion violates WP:NPOV. Here are a few examples (key phrases highlighted)

• [Deficit:] Romney later criticized Obama for failing to specify the true impact of the resulting sequestration, as required by law.[39]
• [Energy and the Environment:] Romney had previously expressed opposition to federal aid for renewable energy development,[70][71] and his August 2012 energy policy plan proposed eliminating government support in the form of loan guarantees and subsidies for development of renewable types of energy,[72][68][73] sources of energy that Romney had said the Obama administration has been over-reliant on.[62]n.[62]
• [Energy and the Environment:] However, he did tell a town hall gathering in April 2012 that, in contrast to Obama, he did not want to raise taxes on oil companies.

These phrases (and other similar instances) should be deleted. The remainder of the text can remain. Thoughts? Dorkenergy (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Position on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Romney said during the presidential primary campaign that the federal responsibility for responding to natural disasters, such as tornadoes and hurricanes, should be transferred to the states or, better still, the private sector. He added that it was immoral, in his view, for the federal government to borrow funds to support activities such as disaster relief rather than to cut federal services in order to reduce the federal debt. Now, as the country is dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, Romney is refusing to respond to press questions on his position on the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Several editors have been making edits that are clouding or suppressing this information. What Wikipedia policies are these edits based on? Dezastru (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Refusing to respond" is not a political position. Pretty simple. Arkon (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't understand the problem. How he handled a question without answering last Tuesday isn't his political position, unless something slipped out. Romney also refused to criticize Obama when prodded to do so by reporters; does that mean he secretly supports his opponent?Q?Q?--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The WP:N of his position was raised by Hurricane Sandy. Therefore, more about his position isn't WP:UNDUE. Casprings (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no more about his position; he was quite clear. He believes that this is better handeled at the state level than the federal level. Arzel (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

To say that Romney's refusal to respond is not a political position is misleading, and moreover, just false. His position has been to refuse to answer questions regarding FEMA, plain and simple. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

He already stated his position regarding FEMA. Arzel (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There is an entire section in the article stating his position. Plain and simple. Arkon (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

While it's true that there's a section in the article dedicated to gov. Romney's stance on FEMA, the section doesn't mention anything about recent events. Hence, it's not being repetitious to mention the fact that he has refused to answer questions on his position. Notice that there are now three editors to one in favor of including the material in question. It seems to me that the one dissenter should not have his way. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your counting is faulty. Myself, Arzel, and Anonymous all have explained why this does not belong. Arkon (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.examiner.com/a-277076~Meet_the_Next_President__Romney___The_Man_to_Beat_.html

  Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)