From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
More information about this article... A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the Biography WikiProject.

Mitt Romney is part of WikiProject Massachusetts, an effort to create, expand, and improve Massachusetts-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Contents 1 General Rules and plan 1.1 Format 1.1.1 Formatting of footnotes 1.2 Subject headings 1.3 Bias 1.4 This Article is Bias 1.4.1 Reasons to agree 1.4.2 Reasons to disagree 1.5 New organized format 2 Mitt Issues 2.1 Biography 2.1.1 Home 2.1.2 Birthplace 2.1.3 The issue of his faith 2.1.3.1 Latter-day Saints bishop category 2.1.4 Swahili 2.1.5 Ted Danson 2.1.6 Family 2.1.6.1 Statement about Ann's MS 3 Political Campaigns 3.1 1994 Campaign for United States Senate 3.2 2002 Campaign for Governor 3.2.1 Warren Tolman? 3.3 Possible Presidential Run in 2008 3.3.1 Proposed for deletion Bill O'Reilly quote 4 Governorship 4.1 Healthcare 4.2 Education 4.2.1 Higher Education 4.2.2 Charter Schools 4.2.3 One laptop per child 4.2.4 Orphaned Analysis Text 4.2.5 Abstinence Education 4.2.6 Education Subsections -- there are two of them 4.3 Budget Balancing 4.4 Same-Sex Marriage 4.4.1 Proposal: separate article for Romney on Same-Sex Marriage 4.5 Death Penalty 4.6 Drunk Driving Melanie's Bill 4.6.1 Legislators defending drunk drivers? 4.7 Abortion 4.7.1 Abortion inconsistency 4.7.2 Abortion section 4.8 Stem Cell Research 4.9 In State Tuition Bill 4.10 Environment 4.10.1 ANWR 4.11 Other Issues 4.11.1 Taxes 4.11.1.1 RGGI 4.11.1.2 Sales taxes 4.11.2 Gun control 4.11.3 Abstinence Education 4.11.4 Billy Bulger resignation 4.11.4.1 Is William Bulger really the biggest thing of his Governorship? 4.11.5 Tar baby 4.11.6 Reparative therapy 4.11.7 The Big Dig 5 Issues not on the main page 5.1 "democratic-controlled legislature" 5.2 His Excellency 5.3 Opinion Adjectives 5.4 Mitt Romney on Civil Liberties 5.4.1 Governor Mitt Romney and Business 6 Changes by date not by subject 6.1 4/29/06 6.1.1 The new catagories cut up articles and made a mess. 6.2 Links 6.3 External Links 6.4 email contact info needed 7 Changes that have been made, and everyone is OK with 7.1 Prior to his political career, Romney rose to prominence as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. 7.2 Propose deletion of "Public Perceptions" section 7.3 What happened to the sections I created? 7.4 Domestic Policy 8 Proposed changes/To do list 8.1 Jane Swift statements 8.2 Changes 8.3 NPOV 8.4 Article needing an overhaul 8.5 Article as Source 8.6 Copyright violation 9 Mitt Romney and Feature Article Review 9.1 Mitt Romney 9.2 Education legislation and rhetoric (funding in Massachusetts) 9.3 Point of View 9.4 General Court 9.5 Citations 9.6 Why not peer review? 9.7 References fail to follow policy 9.8 Featured Article Review nomination is incomplete 9.9 Withdraw from Featured Article Review 9.10 Inspector General's report and SEC investigation 9.11 Link spam? 10 Peer Review of article at Wiki Biography Project 10.1 Footnote format 10.2 References needing improvement 10.3 Affordable Housing or Just Housing... 10.4 Criticism 10.5 Proposed reorder 10.6 Press Releases and Romney site links 10.7 Governor Romney's podium and new seal 10.7.1 An axonometric diagram of the president's podium 10.8 veterans 10.9 Environment Deletion? 10.10 1994 Election 10.11 Romney's participation in his faith 10.12 Mitt; Wilcken,... 10.13 Welcome Home Bill 10.14 In-state tuition bill 10.15 and honorary chairman of the Commonwealth Political Action Committee.[ 10.16 Does this belong in "education" 10.17 Put this under trivia or somewhere else... 10.18 Encyclopedic style 10.19 Romney ever serve in the armed forces? 10.19.1 The continued edit war 10.20 Great grandfather's polygamy 10.21 Trivia section 10.22 Fan sites 10.23 How much more work needs to be done, until we can re-nominate this... 10.24 Updating links... 10.25 why doesn't #78 link? 10.26 Research resources

[edit] General Rules and plan

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

[edit] Format

Let's discuss possible changes here. In particular, please do not revert correction of the formatting of external links without discussing it here.

• I think this discussion page should be organized similar to the other page. Within each section, new topics should go to the top.
• Formatting of external links - see "External Link Style" below
• right / privilege - the 5th amendment right not to testify should probably be called a right. privilege is something else--Fagles 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting of footnotes

It looks like the reversion undid updated formatting of footnotes. I think it is better to use the new footnote formatting.

• Your formatting was very confusing. Illegal tuition rates have nothing to do with Romney's education plans.

I think you are responding to the subject headings (next section down). This is about footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes - nobody actually wants to revert to an obsolete way of putting in footnotes, do they? --Fagles 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Every time I look at the article, the notes changes from two columns, back to one, and back again. I like the two column. It is more efficient with black space, and narrow columns are more easy to read than long ones... myclob 19:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subject headings

It does seem to make sense to have the subject headings be descriptions that are comprehensible to people who are not familiar with MA politics - "Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill" and "Health Care" will be more useful subject headings than simply "Melanie's Bill" and "Health Care for All"

• Your formatting was very confusing. Illegal tuition rates have nothing to do with Romney's education plans.

I agree that the "education" formatting was confusing and have changed it, but what about the others you reverted? Do you think that "Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill" and "Health Care" are worse than "Melanie's Bill" and "Health Care for All"? --Fagles 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This sentence in the article seems a little negative. I think it violates the NPOV 'rule'.

"When polls showed Romney's popularity starting to slip, while state support for same-sex marriage and opposition to an amendment began to rise, Romney scaled back his anti-gay efforts, at least for the rest of 2004."

Mind if I give a shot at cleaning it up?

DanielAmelang

I based that on polling information from summer/early fall 2004, so it wasn't just any bias on my part. I guess I should not have assumed that is why he stopped his homophobic language, especially since he's back in full force with all that stuff now. If you want to clean it up, be my guest. --JamesB3 10:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see. Well, this was my best shot at a clean up: "Perhaps due to lack of support manifested in the polls, Romney temporary suspended his efforts towards an amendment.". I put in the 'perhaps' because I feel squeamish about second-guessing Romney's reasons. But, since this was just a brief change in behavior, I decided to just leave the whole thing out. Let me know if that's a problem, I'm far from immovable on this. --Dan 20:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• residency issue - I don't really care if this is in the article or not, but it seems biased to have a sentence on what his supporters thought and delete what his opponents thought. Delete both or neither.
• "there is no doubt that as a Republican he has been amazingly successful" - this does not sound impartial to me. Presumably his detractors do doubt that he has been amazingly successful.

this whole article is full of bias, there is no criticism of anything, false facts, and a false portrayal of Mitt Romney. He is very unpopular in Massachusetts now.

[edit] This Article is Bias

[edit] Reasons to agree

1. It uses too many press releases as sources (so find a different source, and change it).
2.  :Why isn't his religion or Presidential campaign not mentioned in the Lead section??--Gkklein 18:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, why aren't they in the lead section? This seems obvious. That they aren't included seems part of a larger bias. -Aaronshaf 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

His religion should not be in the lead section, unless he is running for president of the Mormon church. Mitt Romney is a businessman, and a Governor of Massachusetts. When other politicians have their religion mentioned in their first section, than so should Romney. Unless you want this article be accused of sensationalism.70.142.206.0 01:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons to disagree

1. No matter how many times people say this article is biased, does not make it so. I would spend more time proposing, and making changes, and less time saying that "this article is bias".
2. When all you read is the [Boston Globe] and then you read this article, you might be suprised at this article. You might be suprised to read that Romney balanced the budget. All the Globe is capable of writing is violent anti-Romney propoganda. But the facts on this page are indisputable. If they portray Romney in a postive light, you will have to just deal with it, no matter how the facts might be brought into line with your Romney hatred.

70.142.206.0 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New organized format

Hopefully everyone likes the new organized format. Perhaps the old format had an advantage, that our discussion could have been organized chronologically. However, I see great value in organizing our discussion by subject, and hope you do also. Questions: I don't know if Ted Danson would be under biography? We should make a new section for "proposed changes", and then as everyone is OK, and they have been changed, then we can move the discussion into a done, complete, past, or reference section...

[edit] Mitt Issues

[edit] Biography

Using "tar baby" as his nickname is not only untrue, but it also is derogatoryy towards him. The "tar baby" nickname should be removed to not look like an offensive statement.

[edit] Home

The way this reads right now, it talks about his residency, and his religion. It needs to be better organized than that. I guess someone removed the ==home== section, is everyone alright with this? Should we create an "old section headings" section? myclob

[edit] Birthplace

Natural-born citizen says Romney was born in Mexico, but this article says Detroit. Which one is correct? CryptoDerk 20:31, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like neither. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2002/races/ma_governor.html says Bloomfield, Michigan (close to Detroit, I think), and I trust PBS. Any other ideas? --Dan 05:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Mitt was born in the USA. His dad was already a prominent politician when before he was born. --RyanKnoll 14:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I was surprised to read that Romney graduated from Brigham Young - especially as I had heard him speak anecdotally of Stanford. I Googled it. Romney was valedictorian at Brigham Young according to an article located at this website: http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200506031216.asp">

"Romney returned home and married Ann, his high-school sweetheart, when he was 22 and she was 19. Though he attended Stanford for two semesters, he transferred to Brigham Young University and became the valedictorian. "

Is that true? If so, should(nt) something like that be included in his bio?

-Thomas

I agree. I would like to know more WHY did he transfer from Stanford to BYU. Is there an article we can cite that will answer that? Did he not do well at Stanford? Did his faith lead him to attend BYU instead? Was there another college girlfriend that attended BYU? Etc.

I also agree that Governor Romney's place of birth is very relevant. If he was born in Mexico, would that make a difference in his eligibility to become President of the United States? These are things that opposition research should investigate, but to make life easier on everybody, us Wiki fans should find that detail out now....

-Larry

Natural-born citizen refers to his father, George.--Gkklein 17:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The issue of his faith

Will somebody mention how such a challenge it would be for Romney to run in 2008, considering how southern Protestants, including Jerry Falwell, take issue with the Mormon religion? Would any conservatives here like to try mentioning this? -Amit

No, because it is not likely it will be an issue, and certainly not an NPOV one. If southern Protestants, as you call them, do complain about him being a Mormon, then it will become an issue you can talk about here. Far more likely is the anti-religious wingnuts of the Democratic Party will come up with positively loony accusations. Except this didn't quite work against Bush, and would likely inspire those who are religious to side with Romney. And I believe a lot of people wouldn't buy it, because Anti-Mormons tend to be much loonier than the "George Bush destroyed the Twin Towers" crowd. Jgardner 17:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jgardner, since you're Mormon, I'm going to assume the whole issue of Romney being Mormon is a touchy and perhaps embarrassing issue. But this is getting into the media now. This is an important issue. And your OPINION that his faith won't be an issue is in contrast to all the articles out there on it. Romney's faith need to be mentioned. -Aaronshaf 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Falwell even had many Mormon leaders in his Moral Majority group in the early 80's, which is now the Christian Coalition led by Pat Robertson. Politically, Romney is one of the strongest advocates for Christian-like and conservative positions (see his advocacy for the Federal Marriage Amendment)...and Christian leaders understand this.

DoorFrame has moved information about Romney's religion to the opening paragraph. I'm moving this point further down the article: looking at a random selection of other governors' entries, it looks like we don't put their religions so high up their entries, and I don't see any reason to single out Romney for special treatment. So far as I am aware, his religion does not have "headline" influence on his performance as governor, so it seems slightly POV to stress it. WMMartin 13:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In the bio box in the top right section of the page, the religion which Romney belongs is not "Latter Day Saint" but "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", considering that the term "Latter Day Saint" strictly refers to the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", but not the largest denomination or mainstream Latter Day Saint movement.

[edit] Latter-day Saints bishop category

The category of Latter-day Saints bishops has been deleted from Gov. Romney's page. The list incldes bishops both living and dead, it is not solely a classification of current bishops. Constant removal of references to his participation in his faith suggests bias. 15:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swahili

I am curious how he became acquainted with Swahili. I tried doing a simple Google search on this, but the only results mentioning both the governor and Swahili were though that drew from wikipedia as a source. I don't doubt he speaks some Swahili, I'm just wondering if there is more information for this (or perhaps a source).

I don't know? I know he speaks French. Does he speak any other languages?

[edit] Ted Danson

Is it just me, or does Romney look like actor Ted Danson?

One of the articles says that he looks like Ted danson, but with real hair and more handsome?

[edit] Family

[edit] Statement about Ann's MS

I removed the following statement from the article: Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998. as it didn't have a specific source cited. I assume it can easily be backed up from news reports; please cite one or more and re-add it (cited) to the article. Just being careful with possibly damaging information. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it belongs in the article at all unless it affects Romney's current or future performance as governor, or his presidential campaign. Dubhdara 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that does save us from having to find a source for it. I have no opinion one way or another. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't think it belongs in the article, I assume that means you agree I can remove it? I'll assume so, and make the removal - if you object, please speak up. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent - 10 minutes after I removed it, User:Orangecar22 was kind enough to provide a source. I'm satisfied; if only the rest of my edits went so well. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Campaigns

Why would a politician’s electoral history be one of the last things on his page? Just because every other politician’s web page is this way, doesn't mean that is the right way! Besides I don't accept the proposition that every other politician’s wiki sight has their electoral history at the bottom of the page. -myclob

[edit] 1994 Campaign for United States Senate

[edit] 2002 Campaign for Governor

[edit] Warren Tolman?

Warren Tolman ran in that race too. While I know his share of the vote was not large, I find it hard to believe that it was less than the 1% that Carla Howell got. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Warren Tolman was one of five candidates for Massachusetts governor who competed in the Democratic Party primary in 2002. The other four candidates were Shannon O'Brien, Tom Birmingham, Robert Reich, and Steve Grossman. Shannon O'Brien won the primary election, and was the only Democrat whose name appeared on the final ballot in November 2002.

[edit] Possible Presidential Run in 2008

I'm keeping my finger off the revert button this time, but I wanted to voice a concern about MN57798's recent deletion of Romney's 2008 Presidential aspirations. The deletion stated that it was poorly sourced and that Romney hadn't made it official. The original posting cited a Boston Globe editorial. Romney supporters on this page have recently argued that opinion pieces are legitimate wiki sources. Second, Romney is widely acknowledged to be planning a 2008 run. Just because he hasn't made it official doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed here if there are valid sources. This isn't an official Romney PR page. What's the problem? Also, I don't see what the issue is with listing his comment about the Civil War being a campaign of "Northern Aggression." This seems legitimate to me if there is a valid source. In general, it would be nice if editors of this page discussed their thinking on the talk page BEFORE making major deletions.Notmyrealname 15:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For the section Possible Presidential Run in 2008 - Isn't there a better source than Bill O'Reilly for this section? He has zero credibility with a very large number of people. How about a few other commentators, and an article or three from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other national journals? Like this now old blog article [1]. (I did not check to see if the link still works.

by the way, a review of the "citing sources" pages on Wikipedia will give a hint at the complaints that will be received upon review for a feature article. Many citations are general, and don't indicate how the innocent reader can tell when or how the source said the claimed information. Yellowdesk 01:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this guy for president. His dad had more governing experience than he did (sound familiar)--he's only a one term governor and didn't run for a second because he knew he couldn't win. The same could be said for Hillary (only six years so far) and Obama (only 2). George W. Bush had only 6 years experience in a state with a part-time legislature.... ~3 years. When will we start considering only those candidiates with demonstrated competence and experience for this position instead of those annointed by the media for a beauty contest? Moreover, wouldn't it be better if there was atleast a few years haitus between their holding office and running for President? This would give us a chance for a better assessment of their record and they won't be using their time in office campaigning instead of doing the job they were elected to do. I guess I can't fault Romney for doing that now.--140.254.240.228 00:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the following, is that good? "Governor Mitt Romney has been discussed as a potential 2008 presidential candidate as early as 2004." If you look at the article you see that I reference MSNBC...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.140.166.189 (talk • contribs). / Myclob 26 October 2006

Can we merge this with the same category above (3.3)? And then merge all the duplicate headings, to keep this organized? Myclob 31 October 2006

[edit] Proposed for deletion Bill O'Reilly quote

I propose that we delete the quote from Bill O'Reily. Is it really wise to put in idle speculation from a partisan pundit? This week's Boston Phoenix has a quote that "in his heart Mitt is a sharpie, as cold as he is ambitious."[2] This is about as appropriate as the O'Reilly quote. We could either refrain from putting in quotes like this or we could have a seperate section of quotes, but I would imagine that this would get out of hand once he formally declares his candidacy. Comments?Notmyrealname 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just listened to Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them. A lot of people hate Bill Oriley, but I think he is the most watched commentator. It might be the biggest name, to say that Romney will be the guy in 2008 with an R by his name. ?Myclob 0ct 27, 2006 10:00 Chicago Time

Good fodder for a blog, but not for an encyclopedia entry. A poll in the Boston Globe just put Romney behind Guiliani and McCain among MA voters. Do we put in every poll and random thought by a partisan pundit before anyone has even officially declared?Notmyrealname 03:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying Bill is not partisan. It is not a matter of partisan. He may be the biggest person, the bigest news maker to think Romney will make it. I think you might be right. I think we could remove it. I was just playing devil's advocate, and disagreeing with how you came to the conclusion. I like to use Hitler for all my analagies. Hitler might have said something. You quote him because he was an important figure, not because you agree with him, or think that he has credibility. You quote people because they are news worthey, not because you think they are smart. Myclob 0ct 27, 2006 10:17 Chicago Time

I agree with you that if Hitler had endorsed Romney's candidacy, it would be worth putting in. But say what you will, O'Reilly is no Hitler. Again, good fodder for a blog, but not encyclopia. O'Reilly speaks constantly. To keep track of what he says would mean creating an O'Reillypedia. Let's stick to legitimate polls and other truly informative sources of information.Notmyrealname 12:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you really not understand what I had to say? I was not comparing Bill to Adolf. You were saying we should not quote Bill because you think Bill is a Jerk. I was telling you that we should not choose who we quote from, based on weather or not "notmyrealname" thinks that someone is a jerk. Bill's quote was important because a lot of people listen to him. But you said we should not put this quote in the article because bill is "partisan". It doesn't matter if he is partisan or not. Wikipedia quotes from partisan people all the time. It was news worthy, and note worthy, because he is one of the biggest names to endorse, support, or predict that Romney would win over McCain. I liked having Bill's quote in there, because it shows a lot of people who have never heard of Mitt Romney, that here is a big name that thinks he has a shot. -- Myclob 8:39, 29 Oct 2006.

I was trying to be a little lighthearted here, since it's easy to take yourself too seriously on Wikipedia. Myclob was, however, comparing Hitler to O'Reilly by saying that both are important figures and therefore what they say is inherently fit to be included in an encyclopedia. I think this is not a helpful comparison. Hitler invaded countries, started WWII, and murdered millions of people. O'Reilly has a TV and Radio opinion show. This means that he is constantly offering his opinion. Even if a lot of people listen to him, this does not mean that his opinions (millions of words a year) are fit for an encyclopedia (or are even "newsworthy," as Myclob puts it). This should be even more clear when, in the case of this particular quote, it wasn't even on one of his shows, but given during a talk to a chamber of commerce and reported in a blog. If the consensus is to include the quote, then in the interest of balance we should really include quotes from reputable critics, such as newspapers in Romney's home state. Personally, I don't think this is a good option and is not one that is taken with the entries of similar political figures. I did not say that O'Reilly is a "jerk." I think Myclob's last sentence in the entry above makes my point that this is about including a quote in a way that is in violation of NPOV. It might be helpful to read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Notmyrealname 16:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your logic is amazing. Because Bill Oriley says a lot of things, we should not quote from him? Is that your argument? Or is do you want to go back to your original argument that it is because he is too "partisan"? No matter how many words Bill has said this year, he has only said that one person will be the republican candidate in 2008. Re: "I was trying to be a little lighthearted here, since it's easy to take yourself too seriously on Wikipedia"... what do you think me saying, "I like to use Hitler for all my analagies"? Do you think maybe I was joking and that I don't really try to do that all the time? And let me say this one last time. I was not comparing Hitler to Bill. I was saying that your argument that Bill is partisan, and so we should not quote him is stupid. Reagan was partisan, but he was an imporant figure, and so lots of people quote him. Stalin was partisan. Now don't try and accuse me of comparing people to stalin. I'm saying that your "we can only quote people without strong opinions" crusade is stupid. Of course we can quote partisan people. And the whole evaluation of when and where Bill said that he thought Mitt would be the man in 08, is laughable irrelevant. Should we apply your standard to others? Should we only care what W says when he is Washington or when he is in Crawford? Lets examine what stage the moon was in, when Bill said Mitt was the man. Perhaps we should only trust that bill is telling the truth on thursdays. Re: "If the consensus is to include the quote, then in the interest of balance we should really include quotes from reputable critics, such as newspapers in Romney's home state." Are you serious? We should ask Romney critics if they think Romney will be the republican candidate in 08? What point would that serve? Are you just trying to sound un-biased, in a fit of self-rightous holeyer than thou... um... self rightousness? That doesn't even make sense! You want to ask reporters, if they think...what? Oh my gosh. Did you really think that I said that you think Bill is a Jerk? Can you really not get it? I don't care if Bill is partisan, if he is a jerk, if he is ADD, if he is a secret-woman, if he is a warewolf... none of that maters. Your saying that he is partisan, is irrelevent... he is the # 1 cable show. He may be the biggest name to think Romney will be the man in 08. That is why people quoted him... Not because... Oh, I give up...--Myclob 10:16 Chicago Time, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be mindful of your tone. Your comments to me and others are bordering on personal attacks. In answer to your question "Did you really think that I said that you think Bill is a Jerk?" please see your earlier comment that I was "saying we should not quote Bill because you think Bill is a Jerk." So, yes, that is what I thought. The larger points remain that 1) O'Reilly did not endorse Romney; and 2) O'Reilly is not considered in general to be a newsmaker or a good prognosticator of presidential elections two years off. It's not a very good quote and doesn't belong here. I'll leave it at that.Notmyrealname 18:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that I sound kind of like a jerk... I tend to do that when I try to pick apart someone's logic. I'm not a genious, but I try to bring things to their logical conclusion, and I just didn't like the whole, lets not quote from him, he is not neutral perspective... You are right, I don't want to get personal... I was thinking about this yesterday, you are doing a lot of good work, and it can't be fun working on a project like this website, day after day, when people are always rude to each other... I didn't mean for it to be personal... I think there are lots of different opinions, and this is kind of a dificult way to communicate. Thanks for your patience. I'm not really partial to the quote, I'm just conserned about the atmosphere... I was conserned about what would happen in the future, using your logic, about only being able to quote retired judges that have never belonged to a political party... :) I guess I was worried about the slippery slope, but I hear that it is wrong to have a slippery slope argument, it is better to just argue against the present issue... Hope I didn't waste your time on the slippery slope argument, and I hope you didn't take what I said as a personal attack. .Myclob 12:16 Chicago, 1 November 2006.

This section is going to need a major expansion--soon. I dont think polls can really tell you anything at this point, but endorsements and the addition of political talent to Romney's campaign are important additions. Its early now, but we should be thinking about this.--Michael16G 14:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but O'Reilly hasn't endorsed anyone. He just made an aside. This really doesn't belong here, unless we want to have an entire separate section of pundits commenting on Romney.Notmyrealname 23:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Governorship

[edit] Healthcare

See how this is the same first heading under governorship on the other page? Pretty neat hu? Let’s keep it this way.

The section on Healthcare is getting pretty long, and the article seems a bit unbalanced. I propose creation of a new article of Healthcare in Massachusetts, in accordance with Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Articles_covering_subtopics. The article could include information about Romney's role in development of the plan, as well as more detailed background information about the current situation and about how the plan works than would be appropriate for this article. --Fagles 21:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Orangecar22 says: (No sense in splitting. Delete the useless cabinet block with dead links if looking to shorten.)

The Romney article should not be split. An independent Health Care Legislation page for further discussion and developments is a good idea but this page should stay the way that it is. The current health care section outlines the plan that Romney proposes in the linked Wall Street Journal op-ed, and that deserves placement on Romney's page.

Also, it makes absolutely no sense to split Romney's views on gay marriage. I don’t know if there is a "Massachusetts gay marriage" page, but Romney's gay marriage position should be displayed in full. --Michael16G

Put me down as a "no" for the split idea. It would make things too confusing if we were to brake this page up. -Cliffhanger7

• health care: it looks like the only difference between versions is the location of the paragraph break and that you want to mention the Heritage foundation. That's fine with me.

[edit] Education

[edit] Higher Education

This quote is wrong. The sources cited say per capita spending DROPPED. This would mean the ranking by states improved only because one other state dropped their per capita spending to a lower level than Massachusetts. Dreadfully inaccurate and misleading. Yellowdesk 01:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

During Romney's tenure as Governor, Massachusetts' per capita funding towards higher education has slightly increased from 48th in the nation to 47th.

This conflates state ranking with per capita expenditure. Different measures. In this case, the exact per capita figures should be cited for two different years, and the state rankings should be cited for both years, with sourcing and citations, so this issue doesn't come up again and again, or on featured article review. Yellowdesk 02:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Kudos on that one. The sources indicate that while the state ranks higher in per capita funding compared to other states, the funding has decreased due to budget cuts.--Michael16G 03:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - the citations as in the article:
From Bridgewater State College, near bottom of page: 2002 Rank: 48 Massachusetts $158

From TBF - The Boston Foundation

In fiscal year 2005, Massachusetts ranked 47th in state appropriations ($137 per capita) for public higher education and is falling behind major competitor states. The state decreased its per capita tax appropriations for public higher education by 28% between the 2000 and 2005 fiscal years,

Let's also note that both sources are...not nationally known summarizers of statistics of this kind. Yellowdesk 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - -

[edit] Charter Schools

1. “Let there be no doubt, I will veto any charter school moratorium that reaches my desk,” said Romney, appearing at Roxbury Preparatory Charter School with parents of children affected by the proposed moratorium.
2. “Charter schools embrace innovative educational practices that encourage competition and hold teachers and administrators accountable for the academic achievement of their students. Choice within the Massachusetts public school system should be available to all parents, particularly those with children in our low-performing districts.”

–Source: press release (May 2005)

Charter School Press Release !!2003 [09-18-2003], ROMNEY ANNOUNCES $6 MILLION CHARTER SCHOOL GRANT

!!2004 [06-23-2004], ROMNEY TO VETO CHARTER SCHOOL MORATORIUM

“Charter schools embrace innovative educational practices that encourage competition and hold teachers and administrators accountable for the academic achievement of their students. Choice within the Massachusetts public school system should be available to all parents, particularly those with children in our low-performing districts.”

[edit] One laptop per child

One Laptop Per Child Initiative: Duplicating a successful program in nearby Maine, in September 2005, Romney submitted a bill to the legislature to deliver $100 laptops to all children in Massachusetts. This project would cost $54 million.

This sentence needs a follow-up. When was the initiative announced? What is the outcome? What Do opponents say about it? Yellowdesk 01:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It could use a follow up line.--Waverider5 02:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I added this with a link to the speech in which he advocated the one lap top per child program: Romney said; "I want every middle and high school student to have a laptop computer. Our kids won’t keep pace with the world of tomorrow if they learn with the technology of yesterday." Myclob 01:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thing that Romney wants "every...student to have a laptop". But the quote is unresponsive to the stated concern. Why cannot he persuade others to act on his desires? This is the unexplained story that is married to his proposition. Yellowdesk 04:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It’s not "married to his proposition" it explains this proposal. Don’t forget that this is Mitt Romney's page.

Why can't he the legislature to do what he wants? Because the General Court is predominantly composed of Democrats. Democrats have other priorities in education funding, such as appeasing the teacher's unions that support them. There isn’t much to explain here. Do you need a lesson on two party government and the inability a governor to pass some of his legislation when a legislature dominated by opposing party has a veto-proof majority????--Michael16G 13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we make this a sub-heading of the education discussion from above? Myclob 31 October 2006?

[edit] Orphaned Analysis Text

This was removed by Michael16G, Nov. 6, 2006. Worth figuring out how to integrate. and properly cite. Yellowdesk 15:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Romney has cut funding for higher education in Massachusetts by $12 million since joining office. [Source: Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, 6/26/03 & 6/22/06].He also cut almost $3 billion from public schools, health care, and other public services to finance tax breaks that disproportionately benefited the wealthy. [Source: Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, 1/26/05]. Under Romney’s Governorship, between 2002 and 2004, Massachusetts had the largest reduction in K-12 spending in the nation. [Source: Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, 1/2006]

[edit] Abstinence Education

“In my service as Governor, I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventive health practice,” said Romney. “Abstinence education gives young people the support they need in making the decision to postpone sexual activity until they are mature enough to handle the emotional, moral and financial responsibilities of parenthood,” he said. “This is more than teaching kids to say no – it will help them preserve self-esteem and build character.” From a 05-31-2006 Press Release

!!Quotes from Mitt Romney on Abstinence Education

1. “In my service as Governor, I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventive [health] practice,” said Romney. “[Abstinence education] gives young people the support they need in making the decision to postpone sexual activity until they are mature enough to handle the emotional, moral and financial responsibilities of parenthood,” he said. “This is more than teaching kids to say no – it will help them preserve [self-esteem] and build [character].” From a [04-20-2006] Press Release

[04-20-2006], ROMNEY ANNOUNCES AWARD OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONTRACT

!!Links http://www.mass.gov/dph/

[edit] Education Subsections -- there are two of them

There are two "education" sections. One on the state, one for Romney's personal educational experiences. This needs to be fixed. Yellowdesk 01:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I suggest changing the one in the Governorship category to "education initiatives"--Waverider5 02:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Budget Balancing

Put stuff about budget balancing here!

[edit] Same-Sex Marriage

This whole Wikipedia is nothing but a piece of online campaign literature. Romney's campaign people are reading it almost daily and deleting anything balanced. Two days ago, this was posted, and then pulled down.

Romney has a mixed record on same-sex marriage. In 2002, he stated that he did not support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage because "it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept." http://www.baywindows.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=3248627AC1DE4AD9BF73F8EDB5DA00AC

Inside of Massachusetts during the 2004 marriage debate and following it, he did not act to prevent same sex marriages when he could have. Many pro-family leaders inside and outside Massachusetts, including columnist Patrick J. Buchanan, Mathew Staver, Esq. of Liberty Counsel http://www.lc.org/ProFamily/mass.htm

and Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst College ("The Missing Governor," National Review Online, 5/17/2004 urged Romney to defy the unconstitutional Court ruling and prevent the marriages via Executive Order. http://www.nationalreview.com/arkes/arkes200405170901.asp

One read of the well-documented "The Romney Deception" http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/s/spip.php?article325 and it will be obvious to Wikipedia that this page is inaccurate and imbalanced. I suggest the page be removed if the practice will be to allow deletions of information which attempt to portray a balanced viewpoint.

Put Same-Sex Marriage stuff here!

I am reverting the edits of User:JamesB3 because:

1. Removed properly sourced info

2. Added incorrect info (e.g., protestant that replaced non-religious groups)

3. The groups listed their own stated purpose – replacing it with a user’s interpretation is POV

4. Listing Log Cabin Republicans as a “moderate” group based on gay issues is entirely POV

5. To only list 1 group is POV – lots of groups have praised and supported Romney

6. There is no stated basis for the flip flopping criticism

--Noitall 23:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Log Cabin Republicans describe themselves as a moderate group, and Romney accepted their endorsement, so I think it's more than simply my POV. Their purpose is to ban civil unions and same-sex marriage, which isn't simply my POV. The groups you listed (American Family Association, Black Ministerial Alliance, and so on) are run mainly by Protestant organizations, and are not non-religious as far as I know. The reason I revised the info is because it seemed excessive and more fitting for a separate entry on those groups, not on Romney himself. Did you need to include a full typed link, a list of every single group in this coalition, etc. just for a paragraph on Romney's support of their amendment? And the stated basis for his flip-flopping was his support for last year's pro-civil union amendment, followed by this year's revokation of that support.

If you are going to remove anything that I write, at least please try to trim down your own comments. I don't know if you agree with these people and that is why you put so much detail, but something crisper would be far more effective. --JamesB3 07:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, on the issues:

On Log Cabin Republicans, groups can describe their purpose, but whether they are moderate or not is described by others. The only way to get around this is to state the objective of Log Cabin Republicans (promote pro-gay issues within the GOP) and state they identify themselves as moderate, which of course lengthens the article and looks sort of ridiculous, since it clearly is not true. And politicians accept the endorsement of thousands of individuals and groups, including the ones I listed, and noting one select group may be POV. It would probably be acceptable to state, "For his actions, Romney was criticized by Log Cabin Republicans, which promotes pro-gay issues within the GOP and had endorsed him in 2002."

On the orgs, it could be summarized with the words "conservative and family", but I think this does not adequately describe the nature of the breadth of the coalition or its local and national roots.

On the flip flopping, there would need to be more detail and context and sources rather than the conclusory "flip flopping."

--Noitall 13:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, I will be happy to add more details about the flip-flopping.

I don't see the breadth of this coalition. Catholic and fundamentalist Christian organizations have teamed up before, and they have swarmed in on Massachusetts before, in 2001, in 2002, in 2003, in 2004, to try to pass amendments to ban gay marriage. Some of them aren't as powerful as their names may suggest (mainly the MA Family Institute). While it's certainly important to note that they are working together, I still don't see why every part of their organization needs to be mentioned in this article. Wouldn't it be better to put a link to their site in Romney's article and let people see the organization for themselves? --JamesB3 20:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I see the point, but the orgs should be summarized properly.

--Noitall 21:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but all I am saying is that the orgs are included in a link to the website. --JamesB3 22:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to try a new edit taking into account my comments. I won't revert but may tweak.

--Noitall 01:53, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I find your campaign against 'POV' in certain articles/categories fascinating when you make statements such as "clearly not true" regarding LCR staking out their position as moderate. There is no way to establish truth about something that is inherently opinion (a position along a political scale). Apparently you see your beliefs as normative and centrist, and in doing so you introduce your own POV into these articles. I'm most curious whether it is simply a case of blinders or a subtle, orchestrated propaganda effort. Autiger 05:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that "Some legal experts have argued that the original purpose of the legislation was to block interracial marriages and have noted that the law was enacted at the height of public scandal over black heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson's interracial marriages[3][4] , while Thomas Reilly has stated that the law had nothing to do with race.[5]."

Is better than "Opponents of the law have erroneously stated that the original purpose of the legislation was to block interracial marriages"

-- the sources are pretty clear that the issue is still the subject of debate with experts on both sides.

• same-sex marriage: You appear to want to delete the citations for his 1994 campaign position. Why? Also, what do you think of having a separate article on same-sex marriage (below)?

[edit] Proposal: separate article for Romney on Same-Sex Marriage

The section on Same-Sex Marriage is getting pretty long, and the article seems a bit unbalanced with much longer sections on same-sex marriage and abortion than on other topics. I propose creation of a new article of Romney's views on Same-Sex Marriage, in accordance with Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Articles_covering_subtopics. The article could include the growing number quotes from Romney about Same-Sex Marriage that are interesting but would be too extensive for the main article on Romney, and could include more detail about his role in events in Mass. than would fit here.

The Romney article would keep a summary on Same-Sex Marriage (possibly renamed Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Rights, since there's also discussion of antidiscrimination laws, civil unions, and partnership benefits).

The summary could be something like the following:

Romney has strongly opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions while denouncing discrimination against gays and lesbians.[6] He also voiced support for basic partnership benefits for gay couples. Romney was heavily involved in attempts to block implementation of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's November 2003 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, and the Romney Administration resurrected the 1913 law, which prohibits non-residents from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would be void in their home state.

What do people think? --Fagles 17:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Naw, otherwise this page gets too fluffy, Mitt stands by his standing up to homosexuals with marriage on their mind and to abortionists. We'll leave it here. 04:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, go for it. Careful with your spelling, though (e.g. 'benefits'). --Dan 05:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

good catch --Fagles 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If nobody else has an opinion about this, I'll go ahead and make the change next week.--Fagles 02:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Orangecar22 says: (No sense in splitting. Delete the useless cabinet block with dead links if looking to shorten.)

Today, you are witnessing democracy in action. On issues of fundamental importance affecting all of the people, it is ultimately up to the people to decide. That is what this Constitutional Convention is all about. It serves as an important reminder that no one person and no branch of government is above the voice of the people. This is as it should be. Amending the constitution is a serious matter and any changes to the document itself should be finely and narrowly drawn. I recognize that the Senate President and the Senate Minority Leader are trying to find a compromise that will satisfy people on both sides of this issue, but their proposed amendment goes too far. The Constitution should not be used to legislate new social policy. A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not a new proposal but rather a codification of longstanding policy and tradition. Civil union language is best left to the legislative process. My hope is the Constitutional Convention will approve an amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. If we do that, we will have taken an important step toward restoring the people’s voice in their own government. - Source: 02-11-2004 Press Release

I agree with the President on the need for a federal marriage amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As I’ve said before, amending the U.S. Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states and to guard against overreaching by the judicial branch. Acts of lawlessness in San Francisco bring into even sharper focus the need to proceed with the process of amending the Constitution. I don’t think anyone ever imagined that we would have courts and local officials defining marriage in a way that has no historical precedent whatsoever, and claiming it’s been in the Constitution all along. Of course, we must conduct this debate with decency, tolerance and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is so fundamental to society that it should not be decided by one court in Massachusetts or by one mayor in San Francisco. In America, the people should decide. In America, the people are fair and tolerant. Let the people decide. - Taken from a 02-24-2004 Press Release

Good afternoon. Our elected representatives met yesterday and took the first steps toward passing an amendment to the state Constitution that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I applaud Senate President Travaglini, Speaker Finneran and all the members of the Legislature for conducting a respectful and thoughtful debate. As we saw, some people feel that the amendment changes the Constitution; I, and many others, feel that it preserves the Constitution. This amendment process began after the state Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage, setting aside thousands of years of recorded history and legal precedent. The Court directed the Legislature to take action as it deemed appropriate. That’s just what the Legislature did yesterday. The Legislature is now on a track to put this issue before the voters. Ultimately, this is as it should be: the people of our state will decide. I know there are deeply held personal convictions around this issue. There are real people and real lives that are affected. On a matter of such significance and with such tender sentiment involved, I would ask that we continue to show respect and consideration for those of differing views. For all of us, the rule of law is bedrock. We’ve seen the lawlessness that has erupted in other states and how it undermines the higher purposes we all seek to preserve. I know there’s been a lot of speculation about what action I will take as Governor of the Commonwealth. Until the Legislature completes its work at the end of this month, I will have no comment on the options before me. But let me state clearly that whatever I do will be within the bounds of the law. Just as the Legislature is working within the constitutional and legal structure of our state, I will do the same. The Legislature has taken the first step. As the process continues, let us hope the final step will be taken by the people. Thank you. - Source: 03-12-2004 Press Release

Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy, distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for asking me to join you today. First, I ask that my written remarks be inserted into the record of this hearing. You have asked for my perspectives on the recent inauguration of same sex marriage in my state. This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intolerance and prejudice. This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians. Given the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Congress and America now face important questions regarding the institution of marriage. Should we abandon marriage as we know it and as it was known by the framers of our constitution? Has America been wrong about marriage for 200 plus years? Were generations that spanned thousands of years from all the civilizations of the world wrong about marriage? Are the philosophies and teachings of all the world’s major religions simply wrong? Or is it more likely that four people among the seven that sat in a court in Massachusetts have erred? I believe that is the case. And I believe their error was the product of seeing only a part, and not the entirety. They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights. But marriage is not solely for adults. Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother. Of course, even today, circumstances can take a parent from the home, but the child still has a mother and a father. If the parents are divorced, the child can visit each of them. If a mother or father is deceased, the child can learn about the qualities of the departed. His or her psychological development can still be influenced by the contrasting features of both genders. Are we ready to usher in a society indifferent about having fathers and mothers? Will our children be indifferent about having a mother and a father? My Department of Public Health has asked whether we must re-write our state birth certificates to conform to our Court’s same-sex marriage ruling. Must we remove “father” and “mother” and replace them with “parent A” and “parent B?” What should be the ideal for raising a child: not a village, not “parent A” and “parent B,” but a mother and a father. Marriage is about even more than children and adults. The family unit is the structural underpinning of all successful societies. And, it is the single-most powerful force that preserves society across generations, through centuries. Scientific studies of children raised by same sex couples are almost non-existent. And the societal implications and effects on these children are not likely to be observed for at least a generation, probably several generations. Same sex marriage doesn’t hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years. Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing. One person may choose to live as a single, even to have and raise her own child. Others may choose to live in same sex partnerships or civil arrangements. There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding. But there is a difference between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights, but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all. Some have asked why so much importance is attached to the word “marriage.” It is because changing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same sex practice. It is inconceivable that promoting absolute indifference between heterosexual and homosexual unions would not significantly effect child development, family dynamics, and societal structures. Among the structures that would be affected would be religious and certain charitable institutions. Those with scriptural or other immutable founding principles will be castigated. Ultimately, some may founder. We need more from these institutions, not less, and particularly so to support and strengthen those in greatest need. Society can ill afford further erosion of charitable and virtuous institutions. For these reasons, I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment. Some retreat from the concept of amendment, per se. While they say they agree with the traditional definition of marriage, they hesitate to amend. But amendment is a vital and necessary aspect of our constitutional democracy, not an aberration. The constitution’s framers recognized that any one of the three branches of government might overstep its separated powers. If Congress oversteps, the Court can intervene. If the Executive overreaches, Congress may impeach. And if the Court launches beyond the constitution, the legislative branch may amend. The four Massachusetts justices launched beyond our constitution. That is why the Massachusetts legislature has begun the lengthy amendment process. There is further cause for amendment. Our framers debated nothing more fully than they debated the reach and boundaries of what we call federalism. States retained certain powers upon which the federal government could not infringe. By the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, our state has begun to assert power over all the other states. It is a state infringing on the powers of other states. In Massachusetts, we have a law that attempts to restrain this infringement on other states by restricting marriages of out-of-state couples to those where no impediment to marry exists in their home state. Even with this law, valid same sex marriages will migrate to other states. For each state to preserve its own power in relation to marriage, within the principle of Federalism, a federal amendment to define marriage is necessary. This is not a mere political issue. It is more than a matter of adult rights. It is a societal issue. It encompasses the preservation of a structure that has formed the basis of all known successful civilizations. With a matter as vital to society as marriage, I am troubled when I see an intolerant few wrap the marriage debate with their bias and prejudice. I am also troubled by those on the other side of the issue who equate respect for traditional marriage with intolerance. The majority of Americans believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but they are also firmly committed to respect, and even fight for civil rights, individual freedoms and tolerance. Saying otherwise is wrong, demeaning and offensive. As a society, we must be able to recognize the salutary effect, for children, of having a mother and a father while at the same time respecting the civil rights and equality of all citizens. Thank you. - Taken from a 06-22-2004 Press Release

[edit] Death Penalty

Death Penalty section...this needs an update. Who is for it, who is not, is it a dead letter or what? Yellowdesk 04:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Governor Mitt Romney attends a Massachusetts State Police graduation ceremony. In December 2004, Romney announced plans to file a death penalty bill in early 2005.

The bill, filed April 28, 2005, ...

And what is the status? Has it had hearings? The legislature will only have a lame duck meeting untill the bill is dead. And why is it not a campaign or isssue in the papers? Why has the Governor no leverage on it being heard? Yellowdesk 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what you want but it is a start: Romney has said,

“In the past, efforts to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts have failed. They have failed because of concerns that it would be too broadly applied or that evidentiary standards weren’t high enough or proper safeguards weren’t in place. We have answered all those concerns with this bill.”

Governor Mitt Romney, 09- 23-2003 Press Release

“Just as science can be used to free the innocent, it can be used to identify the guilty.”

Governor Mitt Romney, 09- 23-2003 Press Release

Romney’s legislation also includes a number of additional safeguards, including:

A bifurcated trial process with one trial to determine an individual’s guilt and a separate one for sentencing. The defendant could request a different jury for each stage of the process;

An automatic review of any death sentence by the state Supreme Judicial Court; and

The creation of a Death Penalty Review Commission to review any complaints filed by individuals on death row and to investigate any errors that may have allegedly occurred during the trial. Myclob 10:33 Chicago, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Click here for More: http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Death%20Penalty

What are you mising? The bill was proposed and it was defeated by the legislature. This is a complete section. Please read the text provided before you creat superflous sections on the talk page.--Michael16G 13:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If that were all there is to it, then the entry should merely be: Romney filed a bill allowing the death penalty to be re-instated. It was not approved by the legislature. But Romney had reasons for advocating the bill in a particular form, which are unstated, and others had reasons for not approving it, which are also unstated; without the context, the consequence is So what? Why should the reader care about the proposal? Without context and explanation, this is merely another item in the list of non-accomplishments of the Romney governorship. -- Yellowdesk 22:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A reader would care if they wanted to know Governor Mitt Romney's position on the death penalty. I reader wouldn't come to Governor Mitt Romney's wikipedia article to learn what Massachusetts state senators think about the death penalty. You keep saying we need to hear from those who disagree with Romney. Look at all the other websites of possible 2008 candidates. Barak Obama's website has been a featured article. I do not see one opinion from someone who disagrees with Barak. I'm getting tired of hearing how we need to hear from every state senator who ever over-road one of Mitt Romney's efforts. -- Myclob 8:34 Chicago Time, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The presupposition of Myclob's argument is that only pro-Romney readers will visit the article, not uninformed, nor Independant, nor Democrat, nor international, nor disinterested visitors who are unacquainted with the issues. In any case, the section as presently written is a mere description of the proposal, without context for understanding its significance, nor for understanding why the legislature did not accept it. -- Yellowdesk 03:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that what you really think my position is? You think I only want pro-Romney readers to visit this article? How exactly can what I write in the article affect who visits it? How can I keep uninformed, independent, democrat, international, and disinterested people from reading this article? What would I accomplish, if you say that I am pro-Romney, by only having people that are pro-Romney read the article? What good would that do? You obviously have some major problems with basic logic. You could over simplify my position that we should focus on Romney's beliefs on the Mitt Romney website, and try to make it sound like I am trying to silence the poor defensless uninformed, independent, democrat, international, and disinterested reader, but who do you think we should focus our attention on, on this, the Mitt Romney article. Lets be honest. Democrats would like to explain why they disagree with Willard Mitt Romney on the Mitt Romney article, but is this good policy? Are you trying to oversimplify my position, to further your campaign? I think you are lying. That is right. I am calling you a liar and challenge you to a duel, for being a dastardly coward... My position of my argument is that people will want to learn about Mitt Romney when they come to the Mitt Romney page. That is why they make a special page for Mitt Romney, is so people can learn about Mitt Romney. How can I control who reads the article? Am I magic? How could I grantee that only pro-romney people read the article. Perhaps you meant to say that I only want the article to make pro-romney people happy? That would make more logical sense, wouldn't it? Because the degree of the articles pro vs. anti Romney stance wouldn't affect who reads the article, only their response from the article. Lets go right back to square numero uno. My goal would be for someone who reads this article to understand Romney's position. What is your position? You want people who read the article to understand Romney's position, and the position of those who disagree with Romney. Which goal makes more sense on the Mitt Romney page? Yes, you know I hate context. You looked right into my soul, and saw my hatred for international readers (where did you get that?)? - Myclob 10:30 Chicago, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Myclob . No insult was intended. I withdraw the claim that you meant only pro-Romney visitors to the page were implied.

My original and continuing point: without a context that explains why the Romney proposal is significant, it fails to give the section interest, meaning and power. By surrounding the proposal description with an analysis of what was different about this effort, (and why this different effort did not meet with agreement of the Legislature) allows the intelligence and creativeness of Romney and administration to be made more visible. Doubtless there are a couple dozen such citable analysis to be found. There are lots of reasons to visit the Romney page, and not all of them are narrowly focussed on learning about Mr. Romney. But, if one were to visit the page for only that narrow reason, one of the Romney stories is about how he dealt with the politics of the state, and this section (as presently written) gives no hint of that. It could, to the benefit of greater understanding of Romney, and for that matter, his leadership abilities within the context of a less than hospitable political envirionment. A hint of how he might or might not handle Congress for hypothetical example. So, I'll say differently, again, let the section make the larger explanation, to the benefit of understanding Romney, and a few other things as well. I'm talking here, because the current state of the death penalty section is defended, vigorously: I'm not inclined to do the research if new text is going to be dumped. -- Yellowdesk 05:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if I sounded upset. I think we both want the same thing. Maybe the critisism of this sounds too much like a press release hurts my feelings, because I have spent perhaps hundreds of hours (not to hard to imagine...with a 40 hour work week) trying to organize his press releases by topic... I'm sorry for accusing you of trying to hyjack the romney page to talk about democrats is Massachusetts. I guess I shouldn't have disagreed with you, because I didn't have a specific proposal of your... perhaps I was taking your proposal to an illogical extrem... and of course the illogical extreme of your proposal would be bad for this page, just as the illogical extreme of my proposal would be bad... Honestly I like everything you have done with the page, and look forward to a time when everyone feels that the page is pretty neutral. -- Myclob 7:30Am Chicago Time, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drunk Driving Melanie's Bill

Shouldn't there be a link for more information regarding "Melanie's Bill"?

you mean a new article, or an external link?--Fagles 21:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legislators defending drunk drivers?

I removed the sentence "Many members of the legislature were themselves trial lawyers and made their living defending repeat drunk drivers" because it does not have a source. I Googled the topic and found references that said there were many lawyers in the legislature but did not say that they made their living defending repeat drunk drivers. --140.247.239.24 18:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I change the Melanie's bill line from "many in the legislature" to "prominent legislators" and sourced it. I Googled Melanie's bill and found this line from a Boston area newspaper : "Both the House and Senate previously approved bills that contained the provision, but it was stricken by a conference committee before the House gave the bill its approval Wednesday. Five of the six members of the committee are lawyers who have represented drunken driving defendants."

I think [[7]]

is a better source for this point

According to the article cited above, Melonie's grandfather said that "Bersani and the legislators themselves note that some of those who represent drunk drivers favored a tougher law." This is irrelevant to the bill. According to the article, those arguing against the bill were concerned that it was unconstitutional, not that it was being too tough on drunk drivers. The article notes that the bill would actually create MORE business for defense lawyers, so the observation is really irrelevant, and furthermore has no place on Romney's page.Notmyrealname 18:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the full quote from the article:

"Some argue that defense lawyers are fighting the new provisions because they would give an advantage to prosecutors in court. Others say that changes in the law would prompt more of the accused to seek representation."

Actually the article notes that the bill would give prosecuters an advantage over defense laywers in drunk driving cases. Thats BAD for buisness. It is completely relevent to meniton that Romney was trying to push a bill that would give defense layers a DISADVANTAGE through a legislature that contained many defense laywers (5 of 6 in the confrence committee were defense laywers). It is relevent and should be noted as it always has been.--Cliffhanger7 03:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And the next paragraph says: "Still, Bersani and the legislators themselves note that some of those who represent drunk drivers favored a tougher law." I don't think this section of the Mitt Romney article should be a detailed investigation into the various stakeholders involved in the passage of Melanie's Bill. This sort of discussion would belong on a page on Melanie's Law/Bill, but delving into all the various details here would be taking this article off-track. I think the way it is now, "Romney criticized the "watered down" bill, which he said reflected the interests of defense lawyers..." with reference to this article, which says Romney accused defense lawyers in the Legislature etc. is sufficient. Either way, these articles are just reporting speculation on the possibility of defense lawyers' special interests, and in no way proves it. I think, regarding NPOV, it's safer to keep it simple and limited to things directly related to Romney, like his documented accusation. schi ^talk 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with schi's edits, with the exception that I would change it to "Romney criticized the revised bill" or "what he characterized as a 'watered down' bill." As it stands, it is unclear whether the characterization is Romney's or the editors'. I must say that the article is pretty sloppy (with a lot of baseless speculation contradicted by the fact that many of the defense lawyers were actually arguing FOR the bill), and wouldn't have lasted long under the scrutiny of Wikipedia editors.Notmyrealname 18:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion

[edit] Abortion inconsistency

It seems strange to me that at the opening of the abortion section it says that "He does not support abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is threatened" yet he also said that he would have signed the South Dakota bill that wouldn't have made the exceptions for rape or incest. If he makes statements that are inconsistant than I don't think we should just put one of them up as his official position.--Notmyrealname 23:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but its not just Romney. Many politicians who have previously said that they support certain exceptions have come out supporting the South Dakota law (which only includes a life of the mother exception). I'd be open to ideas to fix it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wasington Post reports the following: "A spokeswoman for Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said that, were he South Dakota's governor, he would sign the bill but make sure it includes exceptions for cases of rape and incest -- exceptions the bill pointedly does not include. The office of Arizona Sen. John McCain has made similar noises." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201683.html

It appears as though Romney's position is consistent. I will add this info in to clarify. Thanks for pointing this out.--MN57798 02:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this.--Notmyrealname 16:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion section

Ok, Cliffhanger, I see the quote in there. I appreciate that you didn't delete the other quotes that I put in, as I think they are very relevant. It might be useful to put this into chronological order to show Romney's evolution in his public stances on abortion. It's been well documented that his public positions have changed and I think it's important to reflect that in this piece. Notmyrealname 01:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stem Cell Research

[edit] In State Tuition Bill

In order to avoid bias, the article should not take a position on whether the bill would cost the state $15 mil or not. I have changed it to reflect that Romney thought it would cost the state that much, but that it is a debated issue (see [8], indicating that according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed watchdog group, the bill would "generate up to $5.7 million in new revenues by 2009.")

[edit] Environment

I have made several entries, with valid sources, which simply indicate that there is an opposing view to Romney's position on Cape Wind. Who is deleting these and why? It is obvious that someone from the Romney camp is purging this article. Are you embarrassed by his stance on this project?

[edit] ANWR

Governor Mitt Romney supports drilling in ANWR

1. “I think we ought to have more oil. We ought to develop more sources of oil so that we can increase our supply. But the last thing I want to do is suck it all dry as quickly as we can. I want use less of it.”

–Source: Interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews (December 2005); *Governor Romney answered “yes” when asked specifically if he supported drilling in ANWR.

[edit] Other Issues

[edit] Taxes

I think taxes are one of the more important issues. Some say Romney has not raised taxes, and some say that usage fees have gone up...Weather the section sound pro-Romney, unbiased, or anti-Romney, I think the section should be one of the top 5 issues, not down at the very bottom. Please offer your suggestions!myclob 01:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Property taxes increased due to reduced state aid. Read what the cities and towns of Massachusetts themselves say:

"Increased reliance on the property tax due to state aid cuts led to increases of more than 6 percent a year for the prior three years (fiscal 2002 to 2004). Prior to 2002, annual increases of more than 6 percent had not been seen since fiscal 1991, during the last state fiscal crisis."[9]

Under the Massachusetts "levy" system, total property taxes are not affected by changes in property values. Each town sets the "levy" or the total amount that taxes need to generate. To simplify, the levy amount is then divided by the total value of taxable property to get the tax rate. Thus, if property taxes go up, tax rates go down, and total property taxes do not change -- unless the city increases the levy.

[edit] RGGI

Some editors have said that they are having trouble reading the Salon article about RGGI.[10] Here are some relevant quotes that I hope are short enough to be fair use. The first is from the part of the article that you can read without signing in. You can read the rest of the article if you watch a brief advertisement (click the link that says "read this article and all of Salon for free") --Fagles 02:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Massachusetts was supposed to be among them, but in mid-December Romney abruptly pulled his state out -- despite the fact that several staffers in his administration had spent two and a half years and more than half a million dollars negotiating and shaping the deal

Romney had until last month been an advocate and architect of RGGI, which includes a market-based trading system that will let big fossil-fuel power plants buy and sell the right to emit carbon dioxide. As recently as November, he was publicly talking up the agreement: "I'm convinced it is good business," he told a clean-energy conference in Boston. "We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs."

[edit] Sales taxes

"and a reduction of the sales tax to 5 percent^[61]." The sales tax is five per cent, and has been five per cent; long before Romney ever came back from Michigan. Yet, I don't want to delete this without knowing why it was added in the first place. Benefit-of-the-doubt sort of thing. Sahasrahla 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It should sate "income taxes", not sales taxes. There's been a 30-year conversation about income tax rates in Massachusetts. Yellowdesk 06:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun control

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Guns

07-01-2004, ROMNEY SIGNS OFF ON PERMANENT ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

07-26- 2006, GOVERNOR ROMNEY APPROVES EXEMPTION FOR TARGET PISTOLS

ROMNEY SIGNS OFF ON PERMANENT ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN Legislation also makes improvements to gun licensing system

In a move that will help keep the streets and neighborhoods of Massachusetts safe, Governor Mitt Romney today signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that forever makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on these dangerous guns.

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

GOVERNOR ROMNEY APPROVES EXEMPTION FOR TARGET PISTOLS

Governor Mitt Romney today signed legislation approving an exemption for the makers of customized target pistols, who due to a provision within state law have found it increasingly difficult to do business in Massachusetts. The law requires gun makers to test at least five examples of all new products “until destruction” in order to prevent accidental discharges. Since specialty target pistols typically sell in small numbers and at higher costs than regular guns, manufacturers have found it uneconomical to sell them in Massachusetts.

“By making this common-sense change to the law we will enable target pistol manufacturers to do business in our state and allow enthusiasts to practice the sport they love,” said Romney.

[edit] Abstinence Education

This site is dedicated to understanding Mitt Romney's stance on Abstinence Education.

!!Quotes from Mitt Romney on Abstinence Education

1. “In my service as Governor, I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventive [health] practice,” said Romney. “[Abstinence education] gives young people the support they need in making the decision to postpone sexual activity until they are mature enough to handle the emotional, moral and financial responsibilities of parenthood,” he said. “This is more than teaching kids to say no – it will help them preserve [self-esteem] and build [character].” From a [04-20-2006] Press Release

[04-20-2006], ROMNEY ANNOUNCES AWARD OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONTRACT

[edit] Billy Bulger resignation

I do not see how some one can write that Romney "successfully pressured" Billy Bulger to resign when Romney's staff says that the governor didn't target Bulger. Even if Bulger believes he was the victim of a calculated assault, Romeny denies it. So which is it? Bulger is right, Romney's staff is wrong? Bulger is wrong, Romney's staff is right? The Globe article is wrong? The New York Times is wrong?

Personally I believe Romney did target Bulger. But, if his staff is denying it, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe that he did not successfully pressure for Bulger's resignation.

By the way, the last editing was terrible. Lots of typos and it removed the correct format for the Globe citation. But since I've exceeded my three reverts I'll wait until tomorrow to fix it. Unless someone else wants to fix it. Dubhdara 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is William Bulger really the biggest thing of his Governorship?

Should it be mentioned first? Shouldn't the health care bill be mentioned?

More broadly, what order should the issues be in - chronological order? order of importance? alphabetical order? (btw, the health care bill is mentioned in the "healthcare" section)--Fagles 21:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I don't know about chronological vs importance of events, but I bet finding America is mentioned pretty fast in the Christopher Columbas post. I'm not saying Romney has done anything very big, but I think you put the most important things first. I guess "important" is subjective, were dates aren't, but we can all agree on what were more or less the big events.

[edit] Tar baby

[edit] Reparative therapy

[edit] The Big Dig

[edit] Issues not on the main page

[edit] "democratic-controlled legislature"

The article rather repetitively describes the state legislature:

• "democrat-heavy state senate"
• "Democratic controlled legislature"
• "the Massachusetts House of Representatives, which is controlled by a Democratic party supermajority,"
• "Democratic-controlled state legislature"

The Massachusetts legislature is indeed controlled by the Democratic party, but I wonder whether that needs to be repeated each time the legislature is mentioned (it would also be silly to say "Romney, a Republican" every time his name appears in the article). Before changing it, I'm interested in getting other people's opinions. --Fagles 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think all such references should be styled "Democrat-" rather than "Democratic-" etc (as much as possible) to reduce potential confusion with "democratically-". I found this section heading confusing because of this. 69.87.193.134 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Using "Democrat" as an adjective is a solecism, though one much beloved by the right wing. The party is called the Democratic Party. I understand your concern, because I believe that calling Bush a "Republican" creates potential confusion with leaders who accept republican values, as opposed to imperial ones. Nevertheless, we can't suppress a party's correct name just because we think it's a misrepresentation. JamesMLane t c 03:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His Excellency

The title of the Governor of Massachusetts is His Excellency. I don't think that Mitt Romney is excellent -- as a Massachusetts citizen, I think that he is a terrible governor. But, that's the title he gets, because that's what Massachusetts law says. It's a silly title, yes, but it is interesting for its unique nature, its history, and as a remnant of Massachusetts' British past. So, please don't remove it, unlikable as he is. --AaronS 17:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that was true. Forgive me. AgentFade2Black 21:36 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem! --AaronS 03:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm disagreeing here. Every person seems to have some title these days, especially government officials. I mean: why not put "Honorable" in front of every Congressman's name? While I'm at it, why not put "his excellency" in front of the names of all the previous governors? It's just excessive. Does Kerry Healey get it too? How about Acting Governors? My point is that maybe they're called His Excellency in formal settings, but it's just excessive in an encyclopedia article. --Mark Adler (Markles) 03:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the title is interesting, unique, and historical enough to be included in the article. How are two simple words excessive if they express a unique fact about the person in question? I'm sorry, but you just haven't provided a good enough reason not to include the title. It is hardly superfluous, and it would appear to be encyclopaedic to me. --AaronS 05:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

he's called His Excellency in all official documents. I think it should stay in the article. it's just two words, anyways.--Alhutch 05:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a lifelong MA resident and never knew this. I think it's kinda neat! Anyway, was Jane Swift officially referred to as "Her Excellency"? -- DocSigma 16:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Jane Swift was referred to as Her Excellency. I just did a quick google search of 'Jane Swift Her Excellency', and got a bunch of executive orders she signed while in office.--Alhutch 17:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I had never heard of this either. I think it's a neat little thing to have, maybe with a link directing people to the origins of the phrase? --badlydrawnjeff 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure it's interesting. I strongly agree! Put it in the article that the Governor is called "His Excellency" but don't put it in the beginning as if it's his name.

I'm concerned about consistency across other Wikipedia articles.

For example, the link on the Romney article to His Excellency (thank you, badlydrawnjeff) redirects to Excellency. That article gives as its first example, Jacques Chirac. The Jacques Chirac article does not start, "His Excellency Jacques René Chirac … is a French politician who is currently President of the French Republic." Rather it just states his name: "Jacques René Chirac … is a French politician who is currently President of the French Republic." It even states that Chirac is a Co-Prince of Andorra but the article didn't start, "Prince Jacques René Chirac."

Back to the Excellency article…. It states "New England governors have retained the title of Excellency, though it is rarely used."

Even the article about Queen Elizabeth doesn't start "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II…"

Mark Adler (Markles) 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, without being difficult...maybe they should? I mean, I don't know of any WP policy on titles, the first I thought of was Elton John, who's listed as "Sir." I know knighthood isn't quite the same as this, but I don't think it's inconsistent or anything to add them. I'm not going to rush over to the Chirac article and add "His excellency" (yet, teehee), but I think it's an interesting situation. --badlydrawnjeff 20:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe they should. I don't know of any policy on titles. What I do know is that if the information is interesting, unique, relevant, and historically important, it should definitely be included in some way. Perhaps the article should not start with "His Excellency", but it should at least be in the infobox. I think that it's extremely disagreeable to nix it for purely aesthetic reasons.--AaronS 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

well said.--Alhutch 21:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, that's a great idea. How about moving it to the infobox. I believe that's how Queen Elizabeth has it. Thanks for the great idea! -Mark Adler (Markles) 21:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the infobox idea, too. A request - let's keep it wikified so people don't pull a WTF when they see it. --badlydrawnjeff 21:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I support the infobox plan and keeping it wikified. let's make it happen.--Alhutch 21:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see it on the infobox yet.--Alhutch 21:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Because I'm a wee bit stupid and clicked "save" instead of "preview." All better now. --badlydrawnjeff 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

nice job there. all is well on the mitt romney article.--Alhutch 21:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Nearly a week later, I fell upon this in the style guide. The infobox was the correct place to put it. Glad we were able to come to the correct conclusion. --badlydrawnjeff 21:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

On 1/14 I replaced "His Excellency" in the info box. This is indeed the correct title. Any attempts to change this will be reverted. Michael16G

No no, where the style guide says to use an infobox, they mean one like Template:Infobox UKkingstyles, not the main larger Infobox. -- Netoholic @ 07:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears that disputes over the image quality and the use of "His Excellency" are actually straw men to justify reverting away from the infobox being used for the governors of all other US states, thus I've reverted. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 20:53, Jan. 15, 2006

Use of "His Excellency" is not proper in the infobox or in giving Romney's name at the beginning of the article. Mentioning later in the article that he has such a title wouldn't violate the MoS, but it also wouldn't make sense, because it's nothing personal to him (like Elton John's CBE). Instead, it goes with the office. It's properly included in the article on Governor of Massachusetts, along with other facts about the office, and Romney's bio properly links to Governor of Massachusetts. Note that Romney's bio also doesn't state that the Governor gets no official residence, which is probably more important than the "His Excellency" business, but is omitted for the same reason -- it's also in the Governor of Massachusetts article. JamesMLane 04:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that honorific prefixes apply to people for as long as they hold office and for the rest of their lives. I'm sure that the MGL has something to say about it. --AaronS 16:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The title should be taken out. We don't include honorific prefixes for other people either. Discuss the title in the article if you wish, but take it out away from the infobox. --Apoc2400 07:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note the style guide. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The honorific does not belong in the infobox because it does not conform with our style guide. -Will Beback 22:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Styles and honorifics which are derived from political activities, including but not limited to The Right Honourable for being a Member of the Privy Council, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes

The inclusion in the infobox is specifically banned by the MOS. -Will Beback 22:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion Adjectives

Which is better in an encyclopedia:
a) Romney recently advocated a nationwide focus on education ... OR
b) Romney recently took a powerful position on education, advocating a nationwide focus on education ...

a) the Governor filed amendments to restore some of the provisions that had been omitted by the legislature OR
b) the Governor filed amendments to restore some of the key provisions that had been omitted by the legislature

a) the legislation that reached the Governor’s desk bore little resemblance to Romney’s original plan OR
b) the legislation that reached the Governor’s desk bared little resemblance to Romney’s original plan <deliberate reinsertion of a grammar error?>

a) Romney has offered an initiative to provide health insurance ... OR
b) Romney has offered a bold initiative to provide health insurance ...

The answers seem obvious to me. In each case, the second alternative is the least encyclopaedic. I'll support any attempts to keep those out of this article. --AaronS 23:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitt Romney on Civil Liberties

MATTHEWS: Well, there‘s the tough stuff, because, as you know, you‘ve got to make decisions regarding civil liberties and national security which often come in conflict. How do we really do a great job of surveillance if we have people who are very concerned in this country about the Fourth Amendment and other guarantees of our freedom?

ROMNEY: Well, of course, we have to respect our Constitutional guarantees of freedom, recognize that the most important civil right we have is the right to life. And we need to make sure that our citizens are protected and don‘t lose their lives by virtue of not having done an effective job to survey those who would attack us.

Fortunately, in Great Britain, they have a very tough Patriot Act equivalent which allows them to do the kind of surveillance that identifies this plot before five or 10 aircraft end up killing all on board.

That‘s the most important thing that we have to do is to protect our citizens, and we can do it within a constitutional framework that we‘ve come to know and love. But intelligence work and counterterrorism has once again been proven as the only effective way to protect the homeland.

[edit] Governor Mitt Romney and Business

• Governor Mitt Romney was one of the nation’s most influential businessmen during the 80’s and 90’s. Invested in and/or acquired Staples, Dominos, Sealy and Sports Authority (among others) while C.E.O. of Bain Capital.

!!Quotes from Mitt Romney on Business

• “As tough as our problems are, we have enormous potential in Massachusetts—a diverse economy, a highly-educated workforce and major academic and research institutions. We need the right agenda to unleash the power of these resources,” said Romney. Source: [05-08-2003] Press Release
• “Massachusetts is one of the most attractive states in the nation in which to do business because of our tremendous resources. We have a highly educated workforce, some of the world’s finest health care institutions and top-of-the-line infrastructure,” said Romney. “Now, we need to do a better job of getting the word out.” Source: [06-17-2003] Press Release
• “Today, we remember and recognize a true entrepreneur,” said Romney. “The establishment of this award will help us show our appreciation to the individuals who contribute to our economy and generate new wealth, prosperity and jobs.” Source: [07-14-2003] Press Release
• “Each month, we will present this award to an individual who, like Bernie Goldhirsh, uses innovation and drive to grow small ideas into the businesses that make Massachusetts the leader we are.” Source: [07-14-2003] Press Release
• “Obviously, you faced a choice. You could have remained in Ohio, or moved to any of the other 49 states. Instead, you came to Massachusetts,” Romney told company officials at a welcoming ceremony. “We have the people, the capital and the technology market. But of course, you know all that. That’s why you came here.” Source: [07-18-2003] Press Release
• “Today, we recognize entrepreneurs from a truly innovative company,” said Romney. “Honoring Zipcar with this award shows our appreciation and value for entrepreneurs who contribute to our economy and generate new wealth, prosperity and jobs.” Source: [08-04-2003] Press Release
• “We need to make sure we have the best available information about the state of our economy,” said Romney. “The findings from this survey will help us to identify the competitive strengths and weaknesses of each region, which will help guide our efforts to improve the economy so that we can have more jobs.” Source: [08-13-2003] Press Release
• "The Massachusetts Business Corporation Act and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act will make it much simpler to conduct private sector transactions in the Commonwealth," said Romney. Source [12-04-2003] Press Release
• "These bills represent an important piece of housekeeping for the state’s business community, one that will allow our state to keep pace with new technology and other changes taking place in the world," Romney said. Source [12-04-2003] Press Release
• “We established this award to acknowledge and celebrate some of the state’s most innovative companies as well as to highlight the creative entrepreneurs who are helping to drive economic growth here in the Commonwealth,” said Romney. Source: [12-03-2003] Press Release
• “The story of Yankee Candle is a reminder that you don’t need to manufacture a cutting edge product to be innovative, exciting and extremely successful,” he added. Source: [12-03-2003] Press Release
• "Our economic policies are contributing to the improvement in the Massachusetts employment picture, but we still have more work to do. Holding the line on taxes and creating a business-friendly environment will continue to be among our highest priorities,” Romney said. Source: [05-27-2004] Press Release
• Romney said Straumann is the kind of innovative technology company that his economic development team is committed to attracting to Massachusetts. “The opening of Straumann’s new $50 million North American headquarters in Andover will bring 160 new manufacturing jobs to the Bay State right away and more than 300 over the next five years,” he said. Source: [05-27-2004] Press Release
• “High health insurance costs are making it impossible for our small business owners to provide a reasonably priced healthcare plan to their workers,” said Romney, meeting with Rick and Linda DeWolfe, who own DeWolfe and Sons Auto Repair. Source: [04-12-2005] Press Release
• “We are committed to developing an affordable product for small business owners who want to do the right thing by their employees, but can’t keep up with the cost,” Romney added. Source: [04-12-2005] Press Release
• “Small business is one of the backbones of our economy. It’s through the initiative and drive of people like Fred Curtis that we are creating jobs and opportunity in Massachusetts,” said Romney. From a [04-26-2005] Press Release
• “Permitting can take up to five years to complete, making it extremely difficult for businesses here to expand and add jobs,” said Romney. “If we’re serious about encouraging business investment and expansion, we have to take a chainsaw to the red tape that ties up the process for years and years.” From a [06-16-2005] Press Release
• “Grab your popcorn and soda, because Massachusetts is ready for its close-up,” said Romney. “Movie and television production has increased dramatically over the past 10 years and we want to get a piece of that growth by encouraging producers, directors, and crews to do their jobs right here in the Commonwealth.” From a [11-23-2005a] Press Release

!!Business related press releases

[edit] Changes by date not by subject

[edit] 4/29/06

He is a Governor, not a "Republican Politician". Looking at George Bush's profile, they don't mention his political party until 3 or 4 paragraphs in. Now I don't no were to put that he is a republican back in. Maybe someone else can do it.

Also I was looking at George Bush's Bio, and I liked these sections: 1. "Personal beliefs and ideology" 2. "Domestic policy" 3. "Foreign policy" 4. I also think there should be a seperate section for his two candidacies, the Ted Kennidy campaign were he lost and one for the campaign that he won for Governor. 5. Also we should create a "Public perception and assessments " section.

I need to study now, and have no time to educate myself in these issues (reading articles) and writing an article.

Please help!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_w_bush

[edit] The new catagories cut up articles and made a mess.

re: "This page has been absolutely destroyed. What a horror show. EVERBODY TAKE A DEEP BREATH. The new catagories cut up articles and made a mess. Reverting a few steps. Discuss sweeping changes."

I'll talk about it before I make changes, but I tried talking and no one responded to me. I suggested many weeks ago that William Bulger was not the most important thing to date in Romney's governorship, but there was no response.

I do not think the new categories "cut up articles". Previously information about his political campaigns were scattered around everywhere. We should take this stuff out of "Governorship" and delete it, or put it under each campaign. I suggest making a section for each campaign.

Also Mitt’s views on Abortion are mentioned under his Governorship. Mitt has and can do nothing about Abortion as a Governor. He has affected stem sell funding as a governor, but that is a different subject. That is why I put his beliefs on Abortion under a separate category. If you look at Bill Clinton and George Bush’s profile, well I know George has a section on his personal beliefs.

If you say what specifically is a “horror show” before undoing everything I did, I will discuss each change before I make them from now on.

[edit] Links

I tried organizing them, but made them their own category, on accident... Do we really need so many Mormonism links with Mitt? Is that really the most important thing about him? He doesn't talk about it, so why should we?

Your organization looks good. I changed it so the subsections are not different categories. I agree that there are a lot of articles about Romney and Mormonism. If it's because most articles about his political prospects focus on Mormonism, we should probably leave them in. If this is an unrepresentative sample of articles about him (which seems to be the case), I vote for deleting two of them and moving the best one into the section of "Articles about Romney" --Fagles 20:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

These links don't work:

• Belmont’s Blessing in Disguise Ensign (LDS Magazine), Janet Peterson, April 1987, p. 26
• Climate for Change Ensign (LDS Magazine), Don L. Brugger, Sept. 1993, p. 24

[edit] External Links

I changed back Atlanta44's alteration of the formatting of some (but not all) external links. Here's the new style:

• This is a sentence (see[[11]]).

This is the correct style:

• Sentence about Romney. [12]

Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Position_in_article before changing the style.

Even if we did decide to use the (see external link) format, it should be used for all the links. It doesn't make sense to change the style just for some of the links and be left with different formatting in different parts of the article. --Fagles 16:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] email contact info needed

Is there an email address for contacting Gov. Romney, at the governor's office? If so, please include it in the article.

Governor.Romney@state.ma.us

Is there an email address for contacting him at his current/future campaign? If so, please include it in the article. 69.87.193.134 12:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes that have been made, and everyone is OK with

[edit] Prior to his political career, Romney rose to prominence as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Actually, as stated elsewhere, he lost to Ted Kennedy in 94. I'll change it.

Well I did change it, but someone changed it back. Can we change this wording?

Actually he ran for Ted Kennedy's spot and almost won, before the Olympics thing. So this statement, "Prior to his political career, Romney rose to prominence as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City" is false.

• The wording should definitely be changed, since it is currently inaccurate. I wouldn't say that he "almost won," since he lost by 17%. By the way, please sign your posts by typing four tildes ("~ ~ ~ ~" without the spaces). I propose the following wording:

Before becoming Governor, Romney rose to prominence in an unsuccessful 1994 campaign against Senator Ted Kennedy and as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. He is frequently considered a possible candidate for the 2008 presidential election." --Fagles 03:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Perfict. I like it. I'll copy and paste it?

[edit] Propose deletion of "Public Perceptions" section

This section so far functions mainly as a forum for editors to post their personal assessments of Romney (e.g. "remarkably successful as a Republican in the most Democrat-dominated state in the country where the state legislature has veto-proof Democrat majorities"). It might be possible to make it more neutral through extensive citation of articles, but doing so would make the section very long given the number of issues about which people could argue: Should he get credit for anything done by the legislature, or did veto-proof majorities make him irrelevant? Who should get credit for the health care bill, him or the legislature? Who should get credit for balancing the budget, him or the legislature? Was balancing the budget good or did it require too many cuts in services? Did he really do it without raising taxes, or do massive fee increases count as tax increases? Who approves and disapproves of his performance on various social issues? Who thinks he was too liberal? Who thinks he was too conservative? Who thinks he flip-flopped? And so on. I think it's better to keep these debates out of the article itself.

The section of links to pro- and anti- sites lets people read what proponents and opponents are saying. I would be fine with someone posting a chart with the results of public opinions polls tracking his approval rating.--Fagles 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the sections I created?

I think we need a separate section for each of his political campaigns. Right new that information is scattered everywhere else. He ran for office twice. Once to take Ted Kennedy’s spot, and one for the governorship.

Also his personal opinions are all messed up within his governorship. If you look at other politicians websites, like George Bush and Bill Clinton, you will see how this website should probably be organized.

For instance, as a Governor he did do some things about embryonic stem sells, so that would be a good section under his governorship. However, his thoughts on abortion should be under his personal beliefs, because he never did anything about abortion as a Governor.

Any thoughts?

Shouldn’t we have this additional categories? Why were they removed? Is this article getting too long or something.

Also, I re-organized his governorship, and put health care and other things first, but now it is back to how it was. Could someone explain why William Bulger should be more important than Health Care for Mitt Romney? Every article I've ever seen about him has to do with the Health Care thing. I asked this question above but no one responded.

[edit] Domestic Policy

Re: "Finishing clean up of toxic waste dump that has become this article. Domestic Policy? Who thinks up these categories? He is a Governor. Everything he does is domestic policy. Think about edits!"

You don't think Mitt Romney deserves to have a section about anything but domestic policy?

He is a freaking candidate for the president of united states! Shouldn't people understand a few of his biggest beliefs that would affect other things than just domestic policy? Mitt Romney has said a lot of things about Terrorism. Is the president the only one that affects international politics? Why do Governors go overseas than?

And Governors do affect other things than just domestic policy. There are a lot of articles about how Mitt would not give in-state tuition to Illegal Allians. This is an interaction with a foregn government.

I vote no on different domestic and foreign policy sections. If they are created, I definitely would not put the tuition bill in a foreign policy section. Fagles 03:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes/To do list

1. The large sections still need organized, so they are in the same order as on the other page. Maybe that is too much work... Any thoughts?
2. ===Home===The way this reads right now, it talks about his residency, and his religion. It needs to be better organized than that. (This comment can be removed from here, when it is done, because I also say it under the home section
3. Why would a politicians electoral history be one of the last things on his page? Just because every other politicians web page is this way, doesn't mean that is the right way! Besides I don't accept the proposition that every other politician’s wiki sight has their electoral history at the bottom of the page. -myclob I think we should move electoral history to the top, anyone else?

I think the best place to put the electoral history is in the "political campaigns" section, before the more detailed discussion of the particular campaigns--Fagles 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that I just stumbled across this article tonight, and I've never seen such a neutral, polite, well-sourced and well-cited political article before! A big congratulations and thank you to everyone who's worked so hard on it! It's nice to know that the article for someone who will probably soon be a very prominent figure is so presentable to the public. Many kudos. :)

Second, as a passing note, I'm sorry that I don't know quite where to add my comment. I'm probably screwing up your system...I apologize. Feel free to re-place this where it belongs.

Finally, the point I've been meaning to get to: It's probably rather nit-picky of me, but the sentence, "Prior to his run for governor Romney told a newspaper in Salt Lake City Utah that he did not want to be classified as a 'pro-choice' politician" really caught me off-guard. Especially compared to the rest of the article, it seems redundant and almost misrepresentative. If nothing else, the sentence directly proceeding the one in question specifically labels Mr. Romney as "pro-life"...does he also need to be labeled a "Non-Democrat"? The quote is sourced correctly, but there are at least two grammatical/punctuation errors and one style mistake in the sentence, anyway. I'd like to just delete the thing, especially considering it's an orphan (it doesn't fit within either the preceding or following paragraphs). Thoughts? Cathryn 11:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to stick my head back in here, but have you (the project team, et. al.) thought about entering this as a Featured Article candidate? I haven't seen an FA on American politics recently; besides, it seems rather timely, considering all the media buzz about 2008 fundraising and upcoming party candidate selections lately. (And it's just a well-written, well-organized piece.) Cathryn 11:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to do the "talk" page, but there are some things I would like to do, perhaps before this is a featured article. The image kind of sucks. I would like it to be updated... There are also a lot of unresolved issues in the discussion page...myclob

[edit] Jane Swift statements

I've removed this whole bit from the article as being unsourced, and potentially defamatory if it was not true. Jane Swift's article (where such material should be sourced) has no sources at all! Please source (news reports, Repub. party documents, etc.) this material (in Jane Swift's article) and then re-add this, as it is important to explain why she didn't run(which also would benefit from citation, although it's not defamatory). Removed text: Swift was viewed as an unpopular executive, and her administration was plagued by political missteps and personal scandals. As a result, many Republicans viewed her as a liability who would be unable to win a general election against a Democrat. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

Weasel words: "evolved" and "changed"

As the changes I recently made to this article have been reverted by User:Dubhdara (who is apparently also User:24.218.109.71) and by the account User:Atlanta44 (whose only edits have been to this page, and whose first edit was Feb 2006), I will explain and justify them in detail here. I have requested further comment from other Wikipedians about this on IRC; if anyone wishes to add an item to RfC or such-like, I'd certainly appreciate it.

• I noticed a statement with oddly slanted phrasing: "Prominent members of the legislature were themselves trial lawyers and made their living defending repeat drunk drivers". While this was sourced, I was curious what the source was, so I followed it up. As it turned out, the actual quote from the source was slightly, but importantly, different: "Five of the six members of the committee are lawyers who have represented drunken driving defendants." I corrected the statement to more closely match the cited source: "Some members of the legislative conference committee were lawyers who had represented drunk driving defendants." And, as I had looked it up, I thought I might as well copy the full citation data into the article; I used {{cite news}} for this purpose.
• I removed two groups of unsourced statements from the article and copied them to the talk page, pending citations of specific sources for them. (see the two Talk page sections directly above this one). This is directly in line with Wikipedia policy, as well as multiple requests by Jimbo (citations on request).
• I rephrased the first mention of Mitt Romney's wife; it originally went: "He and Ann have been married 36 years and". I felt this was confusing - Ann had not been mentioned before. I changed it to: "He has been married to his wife, Ann Romney, for 36 years. They"
• I noticed a duplicated mention of Blair Capital: "Prior to being elected governor, Romney was a cofounder and managing partner of Bain Capital, a Boston private equity firm."; Blair Capital had a whole paragraph, right below this. I removed the duplication, while merging the statement that Blair Capital was a Boston firm into the paragraph.
• I felt that the section on Romney's businesses was inappropriately promotional in tone, so I rephrased the following passages: "he led it through a highly successful turnaround." into "he led a reorganization of the company." (If a citation by a reputable source is found for the claim that it was "highly successful", it would be fine to put it back in, of course.)
• Per general Wikipedia policy on links to Amazon.com, as well as policy on external links inline in articles, I removed an Amazon link to Romney's book, Turn Around.

If there are no further objections raised to my changes within a half hour from now(which will be 05:00, 14 July 2006), I request that anyone reading this apply them to the article. I look forward to further discussions about improving the article. Thanks to everyone for their patience. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with your edits: There is no duplicity in the business section. Go back and read the paragraph carefully. "Bain Capital" and "Bain and Company" are different companies. They are not the same, hence no duplicity. The Atlantic Monthly article mentions the success of the turn around. It is not promotional, but factual. Removing the reference to Romney's wife diseases is wrong as she is a public figure and mentions the disease publicly (see CNN transcript). This info is relevant to Romney. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.109.71 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove parts of other people's comments, as you did in your addition of the comment above (I've fixed it). As for your objections - On re-reading the Business section, it needs more work than I was able to give it in my edits, so I'll accept the status quo on that section. (I can't believe I mis-wrote Bain as Blair a number of times above - sorry about that.) As you cited the "successful" bit, I have no further objections to it. Ann's MS was only removed as unsourced - as it is now sourced, we have no problem.

So, the remaining changes that have not been further objected to are: Drunk drivers statement, Jane Swift statements, rephrasing of Ann's introduction, and the Amazon link. As it is now more than half an hour, I shall restore those edits per my statement above. Do not revert them without first commenting here. Thanks to everyone for the additional cited sources! JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am NOT user 24.218.109.71! That is an anonymous user. I always post under my own user name. And I intend to keep editing this article. I restored the Big Dig material because it appears that when anyone adds anything that might considered unfavorable to Romney it's deleted. I restored my clarification of the issue about his non-residency for the same reason.Dubhdara 13:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This page is littered with phrasing that makes it read like something from Romney's campaign office. Here are a few examples, but there are MANY more. Until this is cleaned up, I think this tag should remain.

Examples of NPOV violation:

The Organizing Committee's leadership and policies were restructured, budgets were tightened and fundraising was placed back on track. Under his leadership, the 2002 Olympic Winter Games turned into a spectacular success

In the general election, Romney captured 41% of the vote versus Senator Ted Kennedy's 58% in the closest election of Kennedy's long Senate career. Pre-election polling had the two much closer than this and so the "scare" that Romney put to Kennedy endeared him to many of Massachusetts Republican voters (LOSING by 17 points is hardly a scare)

Refusing to raise taxes, Romney cut spending and restructured state government.[26]. (REFUSING is POV)

I am not going to get into a revert war, but please leave in the POV-Check tag until this is properly discussed here.

Do not list the accomplishments of his businesses unless you can show that it was the result of Romney's action. You are listing present statistics for these companies, but you do not show that Romney is still working there. The size of Staples is really irrelevant. Please use proper sources.

I appreciate that Redsox777 has started to rectify the sourcing issue. I still believe that the style of the writing warrants a POV-Check tag. For instance, several of the sources she (he?) uses are clearly partisan, relying heavily on commentators like George Will. As an example, Redsox777 cites a column by Will claiming touting Romney's 17 point loss to Kennedy as a kind of victory because it was the closest race Kennedy has had. However, Redsox777 also cites another opinion article, this time by Mitch Frank of Time Magazine that calls the same race a "drubbing" for Romney. Obviously, using adjectives to describe Romney's defeat is POV. Why not just leave it at "Although early polls predicted a close race, Romney lost to Kennedy by 41% to 58%."? Rearranging words is part of the definition of spin. In general, the phrasing throughout the article is written in the style of a PR piece by Romney's campaign. It shouldn't be in the style of an attack ad by his enemies, but it shouldn't be a puff piece either. Let's just stick with the facts. And please, let's all agree that opinion columnists and partisan web sites should not be used as sources. Do not remove the POV-Check without discussing this issue on this page please. Notmyrealname 04:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a violation of proper Wikipedia behavior to remove the POV-Check tag without discussing it here. Please see NPOV for more info. A little help please folks? Notmyrealname 23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Badlydrawnjeff for reinserting this tag.Notmyrealname 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem, sorry I missed it before. When I get home tonight, I'll do some cleanup, too, I'm noticing a few problems myself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This site is well sourced and well written. It accurately portrays Romney's accomplishments, controversies and changing views on issues. Separately your "proposal" to eliminate columnists as sources is ridiculous. Even though columnists have opinions their work can be used to verify facts. The Will column seems to source the fact that 1) it was the closest election of Kennedy's career and 2) Romney lost by 17 points. These are facts. Any credible source can be used as a verification of facts. George Will (despite what ever you think of him, and quite frankly I am no fan) doesn’t lie about facts. He would be fired. I trust columns such as his as a verification for wikipedia. I vote to remove the banner as I view this to be a balanced site. Cliffhanger7

I'm thinking it still focuses too much on a lot of irrelevant information on his opinions at this point and can be severely trimmed, but in trying to dispel the edit war somewhat, I'm near 3RR and don't want to run into any issues. I'm against removing it for the moment, but I think there's a lot of NPOVing that can be done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think that opinion pieces are valid sources, then why did you just delete a section claiming it was "unsourced and unverified" when it cited the [[Boston Phoenix}}? Also, how do we deal with the plagiarism problem I document below?Notmyrealname 03:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this entry is solid. Everything is clearly explained and well sourced (over 100 sources on this page alone). I happen to think that his opinions are not irrelevant as you seem to think. Romney is a politician and politicians are elected on their stances and opinions. This page even shows how Romney's opinions have change and evolved (I think that’s the word he is quoted as using). I don’t think the existence of Romney's stances warrants a NPOV. The important thing is that his views are plainly stated without bias. The article states Romney’s platform, but does not validate it. The edits on this page have been very responsible and clear. This page has turned into an excellent resource for people. --Michael16G

From the "CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee" section: Romney first obtained national attention when he served as CEO of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games held in Salt Lake City. In 1999 the event was $379 million short of its revenue goals, and there were damaging allegations of bribery involving top officials. In an effort to get the event back on track, Romney was asked to lead the organization of the Games. The Organizing Committee's leadership and policies were restructured, budgets were tightened and fundraising was placed back on track. Under his leadership, the 2002 Olympic Winter Games turned into a spectacular success, clearing a profit of $100 million. Romney himself contributed $1 million, and donated his three years of pay ($275,000 per annum) to charity.

and now from the source, the arch-conservative Weekly Standard: In 1999 the event already was $379 million in debt, and there were allegations of bribery involving top officials. Romney was asked to head up the games. Under his leadership, they turned into a spectacular success, clearing a profit of $100 million. Romney himself contributed $1 million, and donated his three years of pay ($275,000 per annum) to charity.

Of course there should be some description of his tenure at the Olympics. But this passage is lifted, in many cases word-for-word, from a very impartial source. Terms like "spectacular success," "back on track," "budgets were tightened," are subjective and not verified, and not fit for an encyclopedia article. This kind of language permeates this entry. I would hope that this would be of concern to Romney supporters because the partisan language makes the actual facts easy to dismiss as biased. Also, one might hope that it goes without saying that you shouldn't unilaterally remove POV-check tags just because you disagree. The proper way to deal with this is to hash things out on here on the talk page. Notmyrealname 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needing an overhaul

I've slashed a ton of stuff from the middle section, as it was confusing itself and much too large compared to what's important and the rest of the article. More can be existed, but I figured the rest of you could take a look first before I attempted to possibly slash more. This still needs a lot of work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You have utterly destroyed this page and erased relevant, clearly described and sourced information. Your edits have removed important information and smashed the thoroughness of this entry. Do not erase facts. Do not destroy this page. Make responsible additions and contributions in the future. Cliffhanger7

Uh, no, actually. I did not "destroy" this page, nor did I remove "important" information. For instance, you readded a ton of information about Chapter 58 that is better served in the actual article. It's more responsible to make a clear, concise, relevant entry about Mitt than to keep expanding things until it becomes unwieldy. How about explaining why you feel that all that information is relevant rather than making such a rude commentary on what I'm doing? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article as Source

What's with all the Article cited as press source tags? Why are there three of them? What is the press article?Notmyrealname 06:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, this might have been my fault here. I think I may have inadvertently added the source tag when I meant to add a fact tag. Sorry about that.Notmyrealname 05:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

I have amended the text for the Olympics section so that it does not plagiarize the Weekly Standard column that it cites. Simply citing a source does not mean that you are not plagiarizing if you take text word-for-word and do not put it into quotes. I have tried to edit the content to remove the tendency towards POV.

For specifics, please see my comment above under NPOV.

Please see [13] regarding copyright problems.

For those who keep reverting this text, please be advised that "In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project." This really shouldn't be a big deal.Notmyrealname 18:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitt Romney and Feature Article Review

[edit] Mitt Romney

{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mitt Romney}},
A lot of people have done a lot of work. There has been extensive reviews, and discussion. I keep hearing people say that this should be nominated, and so I am doing it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myclob (talk • contribs) 23:09, 22 October 2006 UTC .

Since the nomination was not properly completed, with an advocacy statement or request for particular aspects to review, and since the article cannot hope to become a featured article for failing to have proper references at the bottom of the article, (see below section References fail to follow policy) the tag for the review was removed today. Yellowdesk 05:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education legislation and rhetoric (funding in Massachusetts)

This section reads like a Public relations item put out by the Romney campaign. It needs comment from legislators that declined to act on Romney proposals, and rationale about why the legislature found other priorities more worth funding. The language is ahem, not of neutral point of view either. Yellowdesk 01:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? Any specific things you think should change, or are you just going to keep saying, "This section reads like a Public relations item put out by the Romney campaign"? I think your the biased person here. Why would we put in stuff from legislatures that disagree with Romney on the Romney article? Why don't we put what Romney thinks, believes, does, and says in the Romney article, and put what other people do, and say, in their articles. If you feel sorry for the poor ignored Massachusetts legislature, you can always start an article for them, but leave their opinions out of Romney's article! People are smart. If they disagree with a direct quote from Romney, then they disagree. What is the bid deal?Myclob 10:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically Myclob's suggestion is to not explain the lack of response to numerous of Romney's efforts on his own page but to push the explanation into a separate page, a tactic known as a Point of View Fork, a standard means to keep a particular article topic free of uncomfortable text and history. See Wikipedia:Content_forking for further detail on the lack of desirablity of that kind of proposal. Romney has a credibility problem not mentioned in the article. He is unable to obtain traction on many of his statements and desires, and this is an important part of his political life (biography) as governor. Yellowdesk 04:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

See my responce below. User:Myclob

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that Romney has a "credibility probelem." How do you detemine this? How do you back it up? The reason why some of his proposal dont make it is because his legislature is dominated by his opposing party. He doesn't have enough members of his party in the legislature to even uphold his vetos. I am not sure how you can attribute the fate of his proposals to a "credability probelem" rather than partisan politics.--Waverider5 03:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point of View

The Abortion section failed to mention Romney's migration from a candidate that proclaimed his pro-Roe vs. Wade views and sought endorsements from organizations like NARAL or MASS NARAL (Prochoice Massachusetts). The section on Education reads like a press release from the Executive Office of the Governor. Doubtless other sections are in need of a critical and informed eye. A non-pro Romney review of the article is needed to balance the proclamations of Romney's views and place them within the context of Masschusetts and Presidential politics. Yellowdesk 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

Disagree on this one. The abortion section is pretty comprehensive. The quotes from the Kennedy section capture his former views pretty well. There is even a few quotes on why he changed his mind.

The article is in general well sourced and pretty informative.--Waverider5 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is a model for other pages to follow. Its clear, well writen an has A TON of sources 9almost 150). the topics are well developed and provide facts, not POV.--Michael16G 03:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

More context is needed. The point of view of much of the article is a report on the Dutch boy with a finger in the dike, and the marvelous efforts of that finger to save everything. Until the article describes why and how all of the rhetorical initiatives (the precious finger) have met with little response by the legislature with a willingness to engage in veto overides to the contrary of Romney "leadership", the article is equivalant to a public relations item from the Executive Office of the Governor. Yellowdesk 12:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to help the article out. The article is subject to criticism as a candidate for Featured article. It's got some distance to go. Re-instate POV-check. Yellowdesk 02:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)\

Dutch buy? what are you even talking about? whatever analogy you are trying to make doesn even make sense! If the mass legislalature overrides something that mention it. Not much else to say about it. To call this page a "public releations item" is completely ridiculous and dishonest. Everything on this page is backed up with facts. it needs minor tweaking to update certain items, but not much else at this point. -Cliffhanger7

That would be Dutch boy metaphorically. The article is about the Romney who cannot understand why other people don't think the dike is leaking, and overide his vetos, decline to take up his rhetorical proposals, such as the death penalty bill, has been unable to advocate effectively for greater spending on Higher Education, is for regulating greenhouse emissions, but only for zero dollars, cannot get the legislature to agree to merge the Turnpike with the State highway department, had his minimum wage veto unanimously overidden, and so on. There is no summary commentary on the failure of his many desires to be converted into action and law. Yellowdesk 20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reinstated POV-check. To the editors that removed the POV-check tag, that removal does not settle the real problems the article as presently written has, nor does it stop the need for a conversation about improving the neutrality of the article. The absence of any description of the failures of Romney's views to have political traction, and his failures to obtain his desires from the Massachusetts legislature, as well as the article's silence on Romney's rhetorical bill filing and and of legislative overides of his vetos indicates that the article lacks some key assessments of Romney's tenure in office as governor. Until this is addressed, the article is a campaign piece promoting the views of the Romney administration without describing the context his efforts, and the why he might have rhetoric that has no traction within the state of Massachusetts. Yellowdesk 05:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the POV banner on the page. I think that this page meets a high standard and does not contain a point of view. All facts and data are back up with an abundance of sources. It is a very through account of Romney's record. As with all wikipedia articles it needs to be tweaked and updated from time to time (especially if Romney runs for president). I disagree with the placement of this banner and vote to remove it.--Michael16G 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Can't beleive this discussion hasn't been resolved yet. This article clearly meets wikipedia standards. Period.

This nonsense about including the Massachusetts legisilature's views on everthing is mindless. This article is about Mitt Romney. Not the mass legislature. The real reason Romney's bills fail is because he is a republican and I have read that the legislature is something like 90% democrats. Do you need somebody to explain this to you? A Republican governor and a democratic legislature with a huge majority dont agree on things.

The format for governship issues should be (and currently is): Romney does or proposes something, description of proposal, few quotes here from those associated with the topic, and then the result of the action. What elese should we do? Provide POV from every single legislator?

Senator X voted against Romney's plan because he fundamentally disagrees with the Governor's proposal Legislator B voted agaist Romney's plan because he hates the Governor Senator Z voted against the plan because he is bought and paid for by unions. Legislator d voted for it because she flipped a coin.

This suggestion is laughable and an example of overzealous wikipedia suggestion. This page is in great shape. Update it as Romney does things.

This not a one sided article. It includes some pretty unfavorable lines for Romney, especially in the abortion section.

I agree that the banner should be removed.--Waverider5 01:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

looks like we are having an election. I read this page. It seems ok. I say remove the banner.--Sierraonfire 02:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Off with the banner. I'm glad that yellow desk wants to swoop in here and change everthing. When he makes good suggestions, we should do them. I would like to follow all his formatting suggestions with the links and footnotes at the bottom, and stuff, but can we get someone else higher up, or just someone else... who made yellowdesk god of unbiased truth? He keeps saying that stuff about "right off the press release", but that is an accusation, and I see little to back up his conclusion. --Myclob 10:45 Chicago time, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Yellowdesk is making some good suggestions and some good copy edits, but his POV on the neutrality is flat wrong. Yellowpage's addition on the banner is just self-rightous wiki editing based on his own opinions. Give it a little more time until we decide if we should remove it.

Off with the banner.--Michael16G 14:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The several anti-banner editors who say my critique and effort for greater balance in the article is without merit, may be astonished to find that the first outsider peer-review of the article, associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography, says that the article has many good aspects, is a "Class-B" quality article at present, and explains there is reason for concern about point of view on several sections, with need for analysis both pro and con of the Romney efforts and administration over-all. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney.
Basically, for the article to climb the categories of quality, to

• "Good Article"
• "Class-A Article" and
• "Featured Article"

there needs to be a continuing conversation about balance within the article, (as well as other aspects of the article) and removing the banner and stifling the conversation about balance will impair progress in improvement of the article's rating. I think everyone would benefit from viewing that reviewer's more general advice on bringing an article to "Featured Article" status: User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA -- Yellowdesk 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the anti-banner folks are missing the point of this process. The banner says an editor has asked for outside folks to evaluate whether the article meets Wikipedia NPOV standards. I fully concur (and tried to have a similar banner in here a while ago but was thwarted by others). The folks advocating for removal of the banner are some of the most ardent Romney supporters here. Now, it's fine for all of us to have our biases, but the point of this is to create a product that does not reflect them. Please leave the banner on until the process has been completed.Notmyrealname 19:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the banner is fine, I do think we have kind of come to an in-pass, and we have some mud throwing, and the same arguments get repeated over and over again (this place is just like a Romney press Release). So yes. Bring in some more people. But I disagree that it is what you say, Romney biased. I want less vaugly worded accusations, and more specific examples of how this Article focuses more on Mitt Romney than Barak Obamas page focuses on him. Lets compare the two. Barak's page was a featured article. I don't see this being any more pro-romney, than that page is pro-barak. Should we say that Romney flucked out from Harvard? Should we say that there is a terrible deficit in Massachusetts? I would love to hear specific examples of how things should be changed. Better yet, why don't you just push the edit button and change things, and spare as all another accusation that this page is pro-romney...Is that what you really think my position is? You think I only want pro-Romney readers to visit this article? How exactly can what I write in the article affect who visits it? How can I keep uninformed, independent, democrat, international, and disinterested people from reading this article? What would I accomplish, if you say that I am pro-Romney, by only having people that are pro-Romney read the article? What good would that do? You obviously have some major problems with basic logic. You could over simplify my position that we should focus on Romney's beliefs on the Mitt Romney website, and try to make it sound like I am trying to silence the poor defensless uninformed, independent, democrat, international, and disinterested reader, but who do you think we should focus our attention on, on this, the Mitt Romney article. Lets be honest. Democrats would like to explain why they disagree with Willard Mitt Romney on the Mitt Romney article, but is this good policy? Are you trying to oversimplify my position, to further your campaign? I think you are lying. That is right. I am calling you a liar and challenge you to a duel, for being a dastardly coward... My position of my argument is that people will want to learn about Mitt Romney when they come to the Mitt Romney page. That is why they make a special page for Mitt Romney, is so people can learn about Mitt Romney. How can I control who reads the article? Am I magic? How could I grantee that only pro-romney people read the article. Perhaps you meant to say that I only want the article to make pro-romney people happy? That would make more logical sense, wouldn't it? Because the degree of the articles pro vs. anti Romney stance wouldn't affect who reads the article, only their response from the article. Lets go right back to square numero uno. My goal would be for someone who reads this article to understand Romney's position. What is your position? You want people who read the article to understand Romney's position, and the position of those who disagree with Romney. Which goal makes more sense on the Mitt Romney page? Yes, you know I hate context. You looked right into my soul, and saw my hatred for international readers (where did you get that?)? - Myclob 10:30 Chicago, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think one key difference between Berak Obama's life and MItt Romney's life is that Obama has not been a chief executive, so the Obama page can successfully be about his views and rhetoric without being incomplete, as Obama is has been merely one of many in a legislature, and one might say, in charge of nothing; with a staff of at most, a few dozen people. If the Romney page is only about his views and proposals, it omits the necessary administration, negotiations, actions, give-and-take, successes and impasses related to implementation of views that are a part of every governor's life. -- Yellowdesk 19:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start trying to be less of a jerk, so please take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. I'm not going to say that this is my belief, only that it is the first thing that comes into my mind when I hear your explanation...That explanation sounds to me like the explanation of someone has already decided that they want to put Romney's oposition into his article, because they disagree with Romney, but do not want to put the republican opposition to a democrat, because they see the democrat's views as valid. It's almost like your mind said, ok, I want to treat barak differently than romney, so what could justify it? Well Romney is a governor and barak is a senator, so lets try and say that this implies that we shoud treat senators differently than governors on wikipedia. Even if for some reason that was a valid belief to have, lets compare Romney to other governors. Please show me a wikipedia article on another governor, that gives more room to that governor's apponents than we give to Romney's apponents. But instead of that, why don't you just find some Massachusetts state legislature that you want to quote and try adding it to the Mitt Romney article. I promice I will give it a fair chance. I mean, feel free to make whatever changes you want. Because I'm probably arguing against some imaginary quote that I think you wan to add, but in reallity I might have no problem with the real quote, or point of view, or background info you want...Just to prove that I am genuine, you can see that I asked at the bottom of the discussion page, if we want to sart a "critisism" section for Romney...The first critisism that I have heard is that he flip-floped on abortion, but that is already in the abortion section, and some gay rights activist feel he betrayed them. That is already kind of in the gay rights section, but if you want to try and pull it into a seperate "critisisms" catigory, that might work. User:Myclob Oct 31, 2006 10:34 PM Chicago.

It would be interesting to check other non-executive legislators' articles, and compare them to governors'. Not that the Wikipedia standard is very uniform. Except for chairs of committees and legislative leadership, just about all a legislator has is rhetoric. Governors engage in obtaining reality out of their rhetoric, in a highly personal way as a leader, and in this sense they're reponsible for their rhetoric in that same personal way, and it is more measurable, than for a legislator, and those measures are a part of their life, and their legacy. Here's an example. A recent comentator article: Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post's "The Fix" (October 5, 2006) as one example of the consequence: Romney's lieutenant governor is in one set of polls tarnished by proximity to Romney, as Romney, according to this comentator, engages with his state, and legislature in ways that may not produce consequence, but play well on the national stage; yet it affect Romney's plans in New Hampshire and nationally too. Isn't this kind of measure of Romney, and of any executive leader useful, interesting, and consequential compared to a reciting of their views alone? I'm not particularly defending the Obama article. I'm in part saying Obama's activities are much more nebulous, harder to measure, perhaps have little consequence (because of his office), and that much of his product is his views and rhetoric. Now if that Rhetoric can swing elections, pass laws, block other legislation, reinvigoratae a party, or cause him to be voted out of office, those are all measures that are important to Obama's life and article. But Obama so far is not really known for that. Romney's product is more than his views because of his particular office. Yellowdesk 06:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. After thinking about it, I think you are right to a degree. People are more apposed to Romney, because he is more powerful as a governor... There aren't very many anti-senator groups, and so it would be harder to quote from them... I look forwarding to seeing your "critism" section :) User:Myclob Nov 1, 2006 12:07 PM Chicago.

You've got to be careful with a potential section like this. "Criticism" contains the very core of POV.--Redsox777 02:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General Court

Yes, General Court is the constitutional term, but who in California or Florida will care? If they want to know the constitutional name, they can click on the link. The Globe even fails to call it the General Court regularly. Yellowdesk 03:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if they care, its the correct term. Other states have unique names for its legislative bodies (Virgina house of delagtes for one) and thy are used. Should we change every reference of "the commonwealth of massachusetts" to "the state of massachusetts?" People in California might not know what a commonwealth is either.--Michael16G 04:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Shire town is the statutory term for county seat in Massachusetts. Some people argue it is the "correct term" Ever heard of the term? Your audience is a general audience that cares not about the name of the Massachusetts legislature. Yellowdesk 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would add to this discussion the use of the term "corner office" in the 2002 campaign section. This is a colloquial term only used in MA. I propose that we substitute this with "Governor's office."Notmyrealname 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the corner office term. It should be changed since it is not an offical term. But the "General Court' should stay. Saying that we should "write to an audince" demonstrates a lack of understanding of the purpose of wikipedia. We aren't writing an advertisement to be targeted at people, we are writing an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias dont shy away from correct names and facts. They include them.--Michael16G 13:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why then does the the leading journal of record in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe typically fail to use the term General Court in its articles about legislative activity? Yellowdesk 14:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the Boston Globe is a newspaper. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Do you understand the difference? For your reference, here is an sample of an article on the Massachusetts legislature from Encarta (an encyclopedia):

"The Massachusetts legislature, known as the General Court, consists of a 40-member Senate and a 160-member House of Representatives. All members of the General Court are elected every two years. The General Court meets every year." (source Microsoft Encarta)

If "General Court" is good enough for Encarta, its good enough for Wikipedia.--Michael16G 14:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

The citation for this is 404. Better source needed. Yellowdesk 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In September 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, claiming that the amendment confused voters who oppose both gay marriage and civil unions. The amendment was defeated in the General Court in 2005 when both supporters of same-sex marriage and opponents of civil unions voted against it. In June 2005, Romney endorsed a petition effort by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would ban gay marriage and make no provisions for civil unions. [69] . http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/06182005/south_of/48340.htm

[edit] Why not peer review?

Featured Article is an unlikely outcome of this article. Why not withdraw the template and nomination as a Featured Article, and get a review from people who really are dedicated to reviews, Wikipedia:Peer_review before getting this article rejected as a Featured Article?Yellowdesk 02:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Featured Article is an unlikely outcome of this article" Do you mean in current state, or ever? Barak Obama was a featured article. Both are possible 2008 candidates... Mitt Romney has been in Government longer than Barak. He has more business experience. He has done more stuff than Barak. I think if we get our acts together, someday this could be a featured article, not that I know much about it. ?Myclob27 October 2006 10:24, chicago time

Just in its current state, especially the lack of references section for the 150 citations. See below sections describing the difficulty. A lower level "peer review" request was just submitted. Yellowdesk 03:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References fail to follow policy

I suggest the leading editors of the Mitt Romney page take a look at the Wikipedia:Citations_quick_reference, and then look at the more detailed Wikipedia:Citing_sources, which describes the policies on Wikipedia for citing sources. Unfortunately the Mitt Romney article (as of October 25, ,2006) fails to use a prescribed system, has partial use of two different systems, and complete use of none. For this merely technical reason alone, the article will fail a Wikipedia:Featured article review.

It has, nine footnotes of the Wikipedia:Footnotes variety, using the <ref> </ref> markup, and about 150 of the so-called Wikipedia:Embedded_Citations, and none of the embedded citations is shown with complete source-article information in a references section at the foot of the page, as the policy indicates they should.

The refences section is intended to give the reader printing out the article a visual indication of the sources, including especially:

• Author
• Article name or Headline
• Journal name
• Date of Publication, with page if known,
• Date last retrieved

An exemplary demonstration of what should be seen on a reference is desribed in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Embedded_HTML_links.
Nevertheless, I actually recommend using the Wikipedia:Footnotes instead of the Wikipedia:Embedded_Citations, as you won't have to keep proofreading the article carefully to see if any new references have failed to be put in the References section--they are automatically put in via the footnotes system using <ref> </ref> markup.

==== Embedded HTML links ====

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Embedded Citations.

Web pages referenced in an article can be linked to directly by enclosing the URL in square brackets. For example, a reference to a newspaper article can be embedded like: [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html], which looks like this: [14]

In the References section, you should also list a full citation:
*Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''The Guardian'', October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005.
which appears as:

• Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005.

Yellowdesk 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Review nomination is incomplete

The Featured Article review and nomination process not has yet been started, for failure to follow the procedures of making a proper nomination. Steps 2, 3, 4 and 5 are as yet unaccomplished by the nominating editor Myclob. See this from the Wikipedia:Featured_article_review page: (Yellowdesk 20:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting—to addressing more involved issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness and POV.

When listing here, a nominator must specify these criteria and may propose remedies. The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Here, reviewers do not declare "keep" or "remove". If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed; if not, the article is placed on the FARC list. A nomination need not be made with the goal of removal. Minor reviews of articles that are generally up to standard, but may require a copy-edit, are welcome.

Older FAs are held to the current standards. Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances).

After nominating, consider notifying the relevant parties. These include the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the edit history page), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the featured article log), and any relevant WikiProjects. Nominators are asked to improve an article that they nominate for review to the best of their ability.

Nominating an article for FAR
1. Place {{FAR}} (upper case) at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit box. Hit "Save page".
2. From there, click on the "add a comment" link.
3. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top of the subpage.
4. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue. Hit "Save page".
5. Copy {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article}}, hit "Edit" for the "Feature Article Reviews" section, and paste it at the top of the list of nominated articles, filling in the exact name of the nominated article. Hit "Save page".
NB If an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1

[edit] Withdraw from Featured Article Review

Since the nomination of several days ago for Wikipedia:Featured_article_review:

• was never properly completed, (see the above section Featured Article Review nomination is incomplete and, since
• the the article will definitely fail such a a review because of its inadequate references as described in the section above References fail to follow policy,

I have removed the {{FAR}} template from this talk page, (the template is the start of the Featured Article review process, when properly submitted),

• so that a sure rejection can be avoided.

I propose that a simple Wikipedia:Peer_review be conducted to further the review and improvement process for this article meanwhile. If someone disagrees with this assessment, this is a good place to speak up. Yellowdesk 03:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that this page is in need of a NPOV review. Thanks for your input on this page.Notmyrealname 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the Biography peer review process, with explanations of the various levels of acceptability (Stub, Start, B-Class, Good Article, A-Class, Feataured Article.). Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review Yellowdesk 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: A Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review has been submitted as of October 28, 2006. Yellowdesk 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inspector General's report and SEC investigation

The current description of the SEC investigation and Inspector General's report in the Big Dig section does not do an adequate job of explaining what is at issue here. I'm glad that a citation was included for the description of the report as "informal," however, the other changes to my most recent posting only obfuscate the issues relating to Gov. Romney rather than clarify it. A reader would not currently know that what is at question are the Romney Administration's claims on bond filings that it conducted safety inspections that were not, in fact, done. These charges are well documented in the press in the citations I included that were later reverted, as well as in the IG's report.Notmyrealname 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody deleted my post - so I am replacing it.--Michael16G 13:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I googled this story for more articles, but can't find any more info regarding the status of the investigation. Is this there anything more to add on this? From reading the citations, it looks like the SEC just wanted a copy of a handbook (I guess that's why its informal). I really dont think this is a big deal --- yet. If the SEC launches a real investigation and finds wrongdoing, we should seriously consider expanding this section. But for right now I think its ok.--Michael16G 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the text of mine that has been deleted -

• • SEC Investigation In October 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission launched an investigation into whether the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and Governor Romney's executive transportation office failed to properly inspect the tunnels before the collapse, despite previous claims to the contrary by state officials to bondholders. The SEC has requested documents relating to the Big Dig from the Turnpike Authority, the state Treasurer's office, the highway department and the Governor's executive transportation office.[15] Romney said he would change the language in the report after the state Inspector General issued a critical report.[16]

The Boston Herald headline is "Feds want to know: Did Mitt check tunnel?" According to this article "The federal probe threatens to undercut Romney’s efforts to portray himself as a white knight for taxpayers on the problem-plagued $15 billion project as he lays the groundwork for a presidential run. The SEC drafted a letter to several state agencies Aug. 23 requesting documents pertaining to safety reviews allegedly conducted in Big Dig tunnels between 2004 and the present. Sullivan’s report said Romney administration officials repeatedly declined requests from the state’s bond counsel to change language in financial documents about the Big Dig inspections. Romney finally said he would change the language in late July, after the fatal collapse and before the SEC probe."

From CBS News "Romney Misrepresented Big Dig Safety Review"[17]

From WHDH TV - "SEC investigating Big Dig bond information after ceiling collapse"[18] "The Securities and Exchange Commission has requested state Big Dig overseers turn over all documents related to safety reviews" Note the word "ALL" documents.

So this is a big deal and jeopardizes Romney's claims to be the Big Dig's white knight. It's been widely reported in all the mainstream media, including Fox and the Herald (hardly anti-Romney sites). The entry as it's currently written does not mention that Romney's claims about safety inspections are under investigation, nor does it mention that Romney had to restate claims about the inspections. It also fails to mention the State Inspector General's report. Since my entry has already been deleted, I'll leave it up to others to reinsert it or put in something else.Notmyrealname 19:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

At first I thought this was a big story about faulty tunnel inspections. Then I read the sources and realized the story is about a typo in a financial document. -Yawn- Lets see if anything more becomes of this typo story.--Waverider5 03:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link spam?

I am concerned about the potential for abuse in the external links section. Currently there are multiple entries of "XX for Romney" sites in the National and State level sections. If all states start similar groups we will have quite a collection. Can't we just list one single campaign site and leave it at that? Otherwise this will start looking like a campaign page.Notmyrealname 18:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont see the probelem with these. They seem to be different sites.--Waverider5 01:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will spell it out. There are 50 states plus the District of Columbia. If he runs we will end up with 51 of these links, plus Investment Capitalists for Mitt, Merchants for Mitt, etc. This will get out of hand. Additionally, they are not sources of new information for a Wiki user. Rather, it is more like advertising for his campaign.Notmyrealname 01:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Waverider5. You just put these links back in. Rather than getting into a revert war, let's let others weigh in on this. In addition to the points I made above, please consider that on the Wiki pages of other Republican Presidential hopefuls John McCain and Rudy Guiliani, there are only one or two links to their primary "draft --" sites, not one for each state and constituency, as is happening here. Also, please visit the different sites. They are basically ads for Romney with no additional useful info. I hope we can all agree that this qualifies as spam.Notmyrealname 03:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Leave them? Take them down? Who really cares? And better yet, who even clicks those links?--Sierraonfire 02:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a wiki site that list all the states: http://myclob.pbwiki.com/LinksByState. That would take care of the state issue, taking it from 50 down to 1. There are all pro Romney, but that could be expected. If you want to really limit the # of pro-romney links, you could link to one comprehensive list, like this: http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Links. Full disclosure. I run myclob.pbwiki, but I am looking for someone else to take it over for me... It goes into more depth than this site ever could. But I willa admit I am pro Romney... So it is pro romney now, but if you want to take it over and make it more equal, you might say it is more even... I don't know, if you want to use it or not... ?--Myclob 10:08 Chicago Time, 10, 27, 06

That seems like a fine solution Myclob. My concern isn't that there are a lot of pro-Romney links here, it's that there are a growing list of variations on the same one, which is what spam is all about, no? Sierraonfire - as this type of list is bound to grow exponentially, it will end up taking up about a third of the space of the entry. I imagine that a lot of people really do click on external links from Wiki pages. The larger question is whether this page is just going to turn into an extension of Romney's political campaign.Notmyrealname 03:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of Myclob's proposal for a single link for all pro-Romney sites. It could be done as Comprehensive list of Pro-Romney state and professional organizations Yellowdesk 03:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am also in favor of this proposal.--Michael16G 13:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I too am in favor of Myclob's proposal for a single link for all pro-Romney sites as well because I can see the potential damage to this work of art down the rode. I'm a webpage designer as well and know how much time it takes to organize everything where it can all be destroyed in just little time. I also think it will help organize his wikipedia pages. (john)

[edit] Peer Review of article at Wiki Biography Project

Instead of the recently withdrawn "Featured Article" review, a request for a WikiProject_Biography/Peer review has been submitted. The request can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney. One or two or three experienced reviewers on the Wikipedia Biography project may take the time to review the article.

Anyone may respond to the review request, but it is desirable for people who have not participated in editing the article to comment in this instance.
To see comments at the review location, click on --> Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney

Here is the text of the request that was made, giving guidance to reviewers:

Mitt Romney is a biographical article about the current governor of Massachusetts, who is visible as a likely contender as a Republican candidate for President of the U.S. in 2008. The article has yet to be rated for quality. I speculate that more than a hundred editors have touched this page since it started as a three sentence stub on 10 January 2004. It has had about 1,500 edits. Apparently over the summer of 2006, the article was expanded significantly by several editors, and sources with links were attached to most of the statements and claims in the article. There are about 10 footnotes and 150 embedded links to sources. Key points and desires, for a review by outsiders:

1. General comments that assess its current level of quality and advice on how to improve the article
2. It is understood that the article presently fails to follow policy by lacking a listing for citations in a References or Notes section at the foot of the article, and that that makes it hard to scan the quality of the sourcing for the article.
3. Since admirers tend to expand on articles about leading living politicians, it is desirable to have specific comment on various aspects of the neutrality and balance of the article:

• • a. tone and style of the words used to describe activities, speeches, accomplishments and events, in relation to balance and neutrality
  • b. quality of the sourcing and citations (no small task), with attention to balance or neutrality of the sources
  • c. an assessment of what is selected topically to be in the article, and assessment as to what extent that topicality indicates a point of view
  • d. there is little mention or explanation in the article about the environment surrounding the efforts of Romney, and why and how his rhetoric or actions (whether in speech, or in bill-filing, or otherwise) have achieved modest results in comparison to his desires in the state of Massachusetts. Comment on this environmental aspect of a biography is desired, as several editors have said sections read like a press release from a candidate.

A scan of the talk page's table of contents may (or may not) be informative: Talk:Mitt_Romney.

Yellowdesk 03:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A first review by a member of the Wikipedia Biography project has been received, and may be viewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney. There may (or may not) be one or two more reviews to follow. Yellowdesk 14:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I see from the comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Mitt_Romney that a second volunteer reviewer participating in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography project will not be reviewing this article, because of the multiple hostile comments by Michael16G. I find this regrettable, as any thoughtful and careful review of this article is useful to furthering the goal of obtaining a Good Article or Class-A or Featured Article status. This may make future reviews of the article harder to obtain, when it is known that hostile editors are involved with the article. You can be certain that a review for a Featured Article status would be far more particular than the thoughtful suggestions made by the 1st reviewer. Yellowdesk 02:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the first reveiw is a little difficult to make out, with the comments of Michael16G scattered throughout, here's the original version of the review. Yellowdesk 04:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote format

This is the format of the footnotes I am following, as I convert them from embedded web links. Updated from time to time as clarification may require.
Source for further reading: Wikipedia:Footnotes
-- Yellowdesk 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The aim is to produce for a Newspaper or Journal something like this at the foot of the page in the notes section:

1. ^ Last_name, First_name. "Title of Article", Journal Name, January 1, 2006, retrieved October 31, 2006.

All parenthesis below are just to make clear a character or two or none is required. No actual parenthesis is used.

(space) (as a single character)

(NOspace) (nothing, keep the item before and after this together.)

(double quote) means: " (as a single character)

(single quote) means: ' (a single character)

(two single quotes): '' (two single quote characters that mean start and stop italic text)

Here's the format broken up into multiple lines so you can read it.:

end of sentence getting the footnote(period)

(NOspace)
<ref>
Author_LASTNAME (comma) Author_FIRSTNAME (period) (space)
[http://www.WEBADDRESS  (space) (double quote) (NOspace) TITLE OF ARTICLE (NOsapce) (double quote)] (space)
(two single quotes) (NOspace) NAME OF JOURNAL (NOspace) (two single quotes)(comma) (space)
DATE OF PUBLICATION  (comma) (space) retrieved DATE (period)
</ref>

[edit] References needing improvement

• As embedded weblinks are converted into footnotes, here are the issues encountered with various sources cited. --Yellowdesk 04:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• I think I fixed the links. The Will article did not support the statement but could be used elswhere. --Waverider5 02:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Not sure if one replacement, Macomber, Shawn; American Spectator satisfies. Yellowdesk 06:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Ok. I tried another article called "Boston GOP beseeching Mitt." I think that is a better link.--Waverider5 03:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

to do: cross off checked-on links. Yellowdesk

---

Sources in process below

---

• Section: Possible Presidential Run in 2008
  :Statement: "He has also signed up well-known political operatives to lay the groundwork for a campaign"
  :Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/ The Fix, WashingtonPost.com (no date)
  :Issue: undated link, no specific published text supports the statement

• This reference was removed. Article by a well regarded author. (It did not support a statement about winning the republican Senate Primary in 1994.) It may have reference value in other locations in the article.
  

Will, George F. , "Mitt Romney for president?" Pittburgh Tribune Review, December 16, 2004, retrieved October 29, 2006.</ref>

• Section: 2002 Campaign for Governor

Statement: "The state GOP needed a strong candidate to retain the governernor's office, and prominent party activists campaigned to persuade :Mitt :Romney to run for governor."

Source: "draftmitt.com (undated);

Revised Source: Macomber, Shawn "Mighty Mitt Romney" The American Spectator, April 21, 2006; retrieved October 30, 2006.

Issue: Statement not supported: "prominent party activitsts," nor is this a published source indicating the form of the organization that lobbied Romney to run. The revised source fails to say much about prominent party activists; just Barbara Anderson.

Check on best method for citing Associated Press articles found in local newspapers. (one item in 2002 Campaign for Governor.)

• Apparently the Wikipedia Manual of Style prefers titles in all caps be converted to initial caps titles. Item for "Other Issues / Housing" section.

[edit] Affordable Housing or Just Housing...

One of Governor Mitt Romney biggest focus has been on affordable housing, perhaps because his father was secretary of HUD under Nixon. Romney advocated affordable housing as a way to help the economy, (1) (2). Romney has often advocated smart growth, and criticized sprawl (3). Romney advocated increasing the number of houses in the state as a way to fight homelessness (4). He also blamed a housing shortage as a barrier to “business growth and job creation” (4). Romney used federal, state, and private funds to increase the number of houses Massachusetts (6) (7) (11) (12) (13) (15) (16). Governor Romney used his position as governor to ask towns and cities to build more houses (8). He used state funds to support affordable housing (I think they were state funds) (9). It seems that when he ran out of ideas two months into his governorship he convened a task force (10). Then when it seems that he ran out of ideas again, a year and 3 month into his governorship, he convened an advisory panel (17) and focused on Smart Growth, and

2003

• 03-11-2003, ROMNEY ENCOURAGES CITIES AND TOWNS TO BUILD MORE HOUSING
• 05-22-2003, ROMNEY, MENINO ANNOUNCE NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• 06- 06-2003, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES $74.5 MILLION FOR STATEWIDE HOUSING
• 07-23-2003, ROMNEY CELEBRATES NEW CHAPTER IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• 02-18-2003, ROMNEY CONVENES AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE
• 12-12-2003, ROMNEY JOINS ARCHBISHOP O'MALLEY FOR NEW LYNN HOUSING
• 12-05-2003, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES $58.9 MILLION FOR NEW HOUSING
• 10-01-2003, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES $8.9 MILLION TO CREATE 825 MORE HOMES
• 08-25-2003, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES $17.6 MILLION TO CREATE MORE HOUSING

2004

• 01-26-2004, ROMNEY LAUNCHES $100 MILLION PROGRAM TO SPUR NEW HOUSING
• 02-18-2004, ROMNEY WANTS TO HELP SENIORS STAY IN THEIR HOMES
• 11-12-2004, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES $1.5M FOR FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER PROGRAM
• 10-21-2004, ROMNEY AWARDS $1.4M TO PROMOTE NEW HOUSING ON CAPE COD
• 03- 31-2004, ROMNEY, HEALEY ANNOUNCE $2M FOR FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS
• 03-08-2004, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES CREATION OF FAIR HOUSING ADVISORY PANEL

2005

• 03-21-2005, ROMNEY AWARDS $4.55M FOR FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER PROJECTS
• 11-23-2005-, ROMNEY SIGNS LAW TO COVER SCHOOL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SMART GROWTH HOUSING
• 12-05-2003 Governor Mitt Romney announces $58.9 million for new housing
• 12-12-2003; Governor Mitt Romney joins archbishop O' malley for new Lynn housing

What do you guys think?

Here is a place were you can find working links:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Affordable%20Housing

I know it needs some work, but it is a start...

User:Myclob Oct 31, 7:34AM Chicago Time

I'm not so sure about this section. I am uncomfortable with the use of the press releases. You should find impartial press items to back up any info that you cite. This page shouldnt be a compilation of Romney press releases. Also how do we know that his father was the reason for the housing plans? Statements like "probably because" are unsutable for wikipedia content. I think we should rework this section. Also, what were the results of Romney's housing proposals? Has the state's affordable housing increased under his administration?--Waverider5 03:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that this is not very sophisticated on my part, but I like leaving the words "probably" as a bread crume to those reading it that I (an electrical engineer) am an amature, and that this section is in need of help! :) Perhaps I should throw in some miss-spellings, as a clear call for help, that I want others to contribute to this section. I like press realeases, when they are used to suporte un-disputable facts. The wording of the press release is obviously biased, however until a substitute can be found that accuratly documents the actions of the Romney administration, (this person said this, this much money was spent) then I think press releases serve their purpose. You don't need an un-baised source to verify un-disputed facts. I agree we should not quote from them, but the are the most comrehensive, summery of actions by the Romney administration... Besides you can copy and paste from them, without giving credit to some corporation. They are open axcess or something. User:Myclob Oct 31st, Halloween, 10:44

I think the purpose of this site is to show what Mitt Romney did. If anyone believes that Mitt Romney did not do the things that his press releases say he did, then I guess we can remove those sections, but I will cry. I have spent all my extra time of the last 4 months organizing Mitt Romney's press releases by topic, so that I can understand what he has done, and said while in Massachusetts. If you want to say that the information contained in a press release in meaningless, than that is OK, but remember you will be responsible for causing a grown man to cry. Press Releases show what Mitt Romney did, and said, and so I think should be used. However if someone can find the same information from a for-profit, lie-spewer like the the Boston Globe, than that is fine, we can disregard offical press releases from the executive departent over at the state of Massachusetts. I see how it is. User:Myclob Nov 1st, 7:05 AM Chicago.

Well, you certainly can't complain if someone says that this section sounds like a Romney press release! Without having investigated the facts here, my initial concerns are the following: 1) It is pure speculation to say that he was influenced by his dad working for Nixon (this may not actually be something you want to trumpet as Nixon was terrible on affordable housing); 2) several of these claims are about what Romney said, rather than what he actually did 3) The middle sentence has seven references. It is bad form to have more than one or two. The point of a footnote is to back up a specific claim, not to force the reader to spend a lot of time doing research on their own. What's missing here is really some sense (from some studies?) about the state of affordable housing in MA at the start of Romney's tenure and at present.Notmyrealname 18:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hay, it doesn't sound like a Romney press release, it just refrences them :)! Mitt Romney employees much better writers to do his press releases than me (I'm an electrical engineer). You are right about Nixon being bad on affordable housing. I read some article about Nixon and Romney's dad fighting over it... Maybe I should try and find that article and reference it... Apparently Mitt Romney's dad was very progressive, and a moderate... I do not think you can say that this section is pro-romney. Mitt Romney's position on Affordable Housing might not be liked by very many republicans, but I don't know... That is Romney's biggest obsticle is getting the Republican nomination... I honestly am not interested in Romney winning, I honestly want the truth to be known about him... I'll go ahead and take out the Nixon refrence...Does everyone agree that I went overkill on the # of refrences? Here are the Romney quotes that I found in the press releases, however I do not think what he said is as important as what he did, but it is harder to find what he did in the press releases than what he said. The quotes say have "" around them, and end in "Romney said". To tell you the truth I have not yet read all the press releases.

• “If Massachusetts is to remain economically strong and competitive, it must have more housing that is affordable to those across a broad range of incomes. This local aid incentive will provide communities with additional funds to offset infrastructure and education expenses associated with a growing population.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [03-11-2003] Press Release

• “The Boston State Hospital project is a model of our [smart growth] strategy for future development of thousands of acres of state surplus land across the Commonwealth. Building more affordable housing like this project is one of the key elements necessary to jumpstart the [Massachusetts] [economy].”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [05-22-2003] Press Release

• “This significant commitment of [state] and [federal] resources, along with millions of [private] investment dollars generated through the sale of tax credits, will increase the availability of housing for thousands of Massachusetts families. Through this blend of resources, we can help ease our housing supply shortage while ensuring long-term, economic prosperity for our state.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [06- 06-2003] Press Release

• “This new law will allow MassHousing to finance mixed-income homes without interruption. We must work harder, and be smarter, to increase the state's housing supply and have it affordable to those across a broad range of incomes.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [07-23-2003] Press Release

• “Since my Administration’s inception nearly one year ago, I have focused on the need to create more housing and smart growth policies that will allow us to expand housing without contributing to sprawl. This project is a perfect example of the type of new housing we should create in our developed urban centers close to all the services that make possible a desirable quality of life.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [12-12-2003] Press Release

• "Each year, we spend more than a quarter billion dollars each year to care for our [homeless] in the Commonwealth, but we need to focus more on long-term solutions by producing permanent housing opportunities for our citizens. Today's awards will not only give a much needed boost to the state's overall affordable housing supply, but it will also go a long way in preventing future homelessness because nearly 20 percent of those units will be targeted to low-income individuals and families."
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [12-05-2003] Press Release

• “Our housing supply shortage is often cited as the number one barrier to business growth and job creation in Massachusetts and we are working overtime to build more housing. That is why my recently announced ‘Jobs First’ program includes additional local aid incentives for increased housing production and also proposes rewards for communities with state-owned surplus property to take action to spur residential development.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [10-01-2003] Press Release

• “This financial commitment represents an important blend of public resources which will leverage millions of private dollars and help ease the state’s current housing supply shortage,” said Romney. “In doing so, it will also serve as an investment in the future of our economic well being by making Massachusetts an attractive state in which to work and live.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [08-25-2003] Press Release

• “We are on a mission to double housing starts in Massachusetts and this is one approach to help get us there without spending new taxpayer dollars. These new resources are critical at a time when public funds are limited, but the need for new housing is enormous.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [01-26-2004] Press Release

• “We need to give seniors the help they need to stay in their homes as long as possible. With a little help, we can keep seniors in their own home instead of putting them into what for many turns out to be an inappropriate institutionalized setting. Our goal is to help meet the needs of our elders as they define them, not as a government bureaucracy defines them.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [02-18-2004] Press Release

• “We want to make it easier for more [families] in [Massachusetts] to realize the [American dream] of buying their own [home]. The commitment of these funds from the [Bush] Administration not only represent downpayments for new homes, they also represent an investment towards a prosperous [future] for the [families] of our Commonwealth.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [11-12-2004] Press Release

• “The Village at Marstons Mills represents a down payment on a more affordable future for Barnstable County. High-quality, [affordable housing] is just as important as top-notch [schools], good [jobs], a first-class [infrastructure] and [safe neighborhoods]. My Administration is working overtime to create additional housing opportunities for [families] across a broad range of incomes.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [10-21-2004] Press Release

• “The rising cost of housing has kept the dream of owning a home out of reach for too many families in Massachusetts. It is important that we continue to target our state resources into programs which bridge that financial gap and increase affordable homeownership opportunities for families throughout the Commonwealth.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [03- 31-2004] Press Release

• “Fair and affordable housing should be a right, not a privilege. With the help of this newly formed committee, we will make that right a reality and ensure a vibrant and diverse Commonwealth for years to come.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [03-08-2004] Press Release
    • Addressing a meeting of the Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations

• “All hard-working families in the Commonwealth deserve a chance to be homeowners, but that has become increasingly difficult for many because we have some of the highest high housing costs in the nation. To alleviate that problem, I have pledged to increase our housing supply by doubling the number of housing starts in Massachusetts so that there are more affordable homes available to those across a broad range of incomes.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, [03-21-2005] Press Release

User:Myclob Nov 1st, 12:36 PM Chicago.

I would cut down on the press release usage. They only prove what Romney proposed, not what actually happened. This section needs to be revamped. If you dont include news articles you open this section up to crticism that it is too biased. This section gets a "needs more work" rating.

No need to cry, its just Wikipedia.--Redsox777 02:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with the conclusion, we can talk about that later, but lets get on the same page as far as logic first. The press releases do not "only prove what Romney proposed, not what actually happened." You are right on the press releases that say, "Romney proposes..." but you are wrong on all the other press releases. For instance, the press releases that say, "ROMNEY SIGNS LAW TO COVER SCHOOL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SMART GROWTH HOUSING" this press release discuses the fact that romney siged a law to cover school cost associated with smart growth housing. Something Romney did, what actually happened, not just what Romney proposed. You might want to read over the topics again of the press releases that I am sighting. Once we are on the same page logically, I would like to discuss your conclusion, and I will tell you ming. User:Myclob 8:19AM Idaho Time, 2 November 2006.

I don't mind press releases; they can't be the only source: more context is ultimately desirable so that the significance of the activity can be understood from other viewpoints than the Governor's office. Sources that evaluate the activity, and also talk generally about housing in Mass. that would give reasons to understand if this is a momentous, just a good idea, or not so significant. Yellowdesk 18:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Yellowdesk. Reputable non-biased news sources are best, unless it is news worthy that someone else said something. The bigger the news source in terms of readership the better. Then other news sources. Then press releases. Then the national enquirer. You should not use the wording of press releases, unless they are direct quotes from speeches, or official documents, actual legislative bills, or direct quotes that can be attributed to the official, as apposed to the author of the press release, who ever that might be. But Press Release might be the only proof of a boring, but important piece of legislature. Also, you don't have to pay to read them. Myclob Nov 2nd 9:16 PM Idaho, USA

I would like to use News Sources, but unlike the state of Massachusetts, the charge you to access their old articles. News sources are not un-biased. They are for profit enterprises, that don't often publish important stuff like a 2008 presidential candadates housing policy, unless the candidates got into a fight over the issue and started calling names. Now that sells. So I went to google news, and clicked on the news archive search option, and found this article, but the Boston Globe required $2.95 to read the rest of the articel:

LEGISLATORS APPLAUD ROMNEY'S HOUSING PLAN Published on January 27, 2004 Author(s): Matthew Rodriguez, Globe Correspondent

Democratic legislators responded favorably yesterday to Governor Mitt Romney's announcement of a $100 million housing program, which aims to create about 5,000 mixed-income units over the next three years.

Called the Priority Development Fund, the program will use reserve funds from quasi-public MassHousing to fund mixed-income developments. The program will put $75 million toward mixed-income developments that are at least 20 percent low- to moderate-income, $22 million toward

Besides the points I made earlier, I have some problems with this section as it is currently laid out (that said, thanks to Myclob for getting it started). The opening statement is, in my opinion, point of view. Has this really been one of his biggest focuses? Compared to what? Have his efforts been successful? Can you distinguish between what he has done and what was done by other agencies and institutions? Also, the scare quotes around affordable housing seem unnecessary. Why not just leave it at "Housing" (without the quotes)?

Another concern, and one that makes it appear POV to me, is that it is essentially a laundry list of actions taken by Romney on housing. Most of what's here seem pretty standard fare for any governor. Again, what's really needed is some sense of whether Romney's efforts on housing have had any significant impact. I believe MA has pretty much the same abysmal rate of unnaffordability that it did when Romney was elected. The key here would be to find some studies that show what has happened, and how it compares to national trends.Notmyrealname 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Should we have a "criticism" section similar to the Obama page? User:Myclob

- Yes, this article is so biased as it is.

I am going to start deleting accusations of "this article is biased unless people say WHY it is biased, and propose ways of fixing it. This kind of makes me mad. And then, to say this again (how many times has it been said), and not leave a name... Its pretty pointless. User:Myclob

i find your defensiveness annoying. it's biased when it comes to initiatives, the real image of Mitt, and the fact he is a part-time governor and royally screwed up on Big Dig.

Way to go! Don't sign your name. You have some really great conclusions. Perhaps you can share with us how you came to those conclusions. Do you only go to the Boston Globe for your info. Tell us about the initiatives. Inlighten us about the "real image of Mitt". How is he a part time Governor? He doesn't get a pay check, and so it seems to me like you are getting a good deal. Just because the Boston Globe mentions that Mitt Romney travels a lot in every article they have ever written about them, lets see some thinking on your part. Can you show one time when Mitt Romney's travels have harmed Massachusetts? Maybe you should elect your Governors from now on by who spends the most abount of time within the state boundries. Forget weather or not they can balance the budget, stop spending from rainey day funds, forget if they consolidate duplication, all that matters to you and the Boston Globe is how many hours they spent within the boarders of the beutiful, and best state in the union, Massachusetts. Tell us, how he screwed up the Big Dig. You know that thing was actually around before Mitt Romney. You know, Mitt Romney has been calling for transparency at the Big Dig for a long time. Back in 93 and 94. No one listened to him. So what would you have done differently for the big dig? 70.142.206.0 01:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this page as it stands now is that it reads like a piece of campaign literature. Wiki, as with all other encyclopedias, is supposed to be impartial. There's a lot of spin about what his office would like to call his achievements, accompanied by quite a few inappropriately glossy "official" photographs, and little about controversies, such as his frequent trips out of state to bash Massachusetts at conservative conventions, which were well-covered by both in-state media (the Globe AND the Herald) as well as out of state media such as the Washington Post. For this article to succeed as properly impartial, it needs some balance. Nearly every other '08 presidential candidate from either party (McCain, Guiliani, Brownback, Hagel, Obama, Vilsack, etc.) has a criticism/controversy section in their Wiki article. Some, such as Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, even have their own separate pages of "controversy". Mitt's is completely absent, and sorely needed. All public officials make mistakes and have controversies. Romney's need to be covered in a separate section, just like everyone else's have been. User: huzzah91

Criticism/controversy sections are discouraged, as they are (arguably) inherently POV (see Wikipedia:Criticism for more detail). Criticisms and controversies should be discussed as their own events, in this case, they can be incorporated in the (generally) chronological narrative that this article is structured on. Please add what you think is missing! schi ^talk 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed reorder

I humbly submit that the topic order in this entry have become somewhat random, especially the division between the Governorship section and the "other issues" (a division that seems rather arbitrary and may be a candidate for deletion or rephrasing).

Here are the topics as they currently exist: 1-Health Care 2-Education Initiatives 3-Budget Balancing 4-Same-Sex Marriage 5-Death Penalty 6-Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill 7-Abortion 8-Stem Cell Research 9-In-State Tuition Bill 10-Environment 11-The "Big Dig" 12-Gun Control 13-Crime 14-Minimum Wage 15-William Bulger 16-May 2006 Flooding 17-Khatami Controversy 18-Tar Baby 19-“Affordable Housing:” 20-Taxes

It strikes me that these seem to fall under certain categories. The most important are the things that Romney has actually done, or bills that have been passed. The next would be issues that he has had a hand in or reacted to, but not a central role, and bills that he has proposed but that did not pass. Third would be the minor issues and topics that Romney was somehow linked to (these often seemed important at the moment, but with the passage of time have proven to be tangential), and positions that Romney has taken on issues that matter more to his future Presidential run than his governorship. I think a few of the items on this list could be up for deletion or at least chopping down to a sentence or two. A few of the topic descriptions themselves are more editorial than necessary.

I'll let others offer their thoughts before I make my suggestions.Notmyrealname 20:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it. If people don't like it they can change it back. I would say go for it, but I don't really have a good idea of how much change can be done with people still being OK, so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt. [User:Myclob] 9:10PM Idaho, USA Time, Nov 2 1996

The order seems good as is. I wouldnt delete sentances just for the sake of a reorder.--Waverider5 01:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, these are really two separate issues: cutting things down and reordering. My concern is that there is no rhyme or reason to the existing order of things. Is a drunk driving bill really more important than the Big Dig? Why is abortion number 7, when it's all about his position on abortion, rather than anything he's actually done as Governor? I have some thoughts in regards to trimming some of the entries (Khatemi controversy, Bulger, and Tar Baby are obvious candidates), but let's leave that as a separate discussion for now. Anyone else have any thoughts?--Notmyrealname 18:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion for a reorder- 1st group (bills that have passed or ongoing policy issues like crime) 1, 3, 11, 6, 13, 20, 10, 19. 2nd group (important issues that Romney has been involved in but was not central to, and proposed initiatives that failed) 2, 4, 8, 9, 14, 12, 5, 16. 3rd group (positions that he took without any action, also "controversies" that few will care about in a few years) 7, 15, 17, 18. Maybe we could even have a section of "policy positions" separate from his governorship, but that will be of interest to people who want to know his position on national issues if he runs for Pres.--Notmyrealname 22:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with notmyrealname. I'm a nird and think that maybe a google search of the heading would tell you the aproxomate length of the issue... for instance of you google Mitt Romney and Taxes and Get twice as many sites as Mitt Romney and WIlly bulger, than maybe that is twice as big an issue... There are so many ways to organize things. Chronological. Importance. Romney involvement. Massachusetts Government importance... Possible 2008 President importance...Maybe we look to lexus nexas for answers. I mean, most people only know Romney for Healthcare... that is probably the most important thing, or the bigest thing that people associate with Romney, then I've heard of him being some sort of turn around magician in context with the budget... then there have been the batles over same sex marrage, and those three issues seem to have gotten the most attention, but who cares! I mean newspapers are kind of stupid... we want to be more scholarly, and so maybe we should follow our own rules, if we can figure them out, as to what we think is more imporant. I don't have any conclusions, I guess I just like hearing myself talk. myclob 03:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Press Releases and Romney site links

Sections should not contain information based soley on Romney Press releases. Press Releases generally show only 2 things 1.) Romney quotes and 2.) Romney proposals. Oustide sources such as articles need to be used to affirm the veracity of facts, and the actual fate of Romney proposals.

Also, every single Romney website does not need to be linked to the page. Only major ones should be linked. If they are all posted, it will clutter the page.--Michael16G 13:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Myclob, perhaps now would be a good time to go ahead with that proposal of yours to consolidate the Romney campaign sites.Notmyrealname 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Governor Romney's podium and new seal

As Governor Romney is at least contemplating a presidentital race, his use of of a podium based on the presidential podium, and the new seal which heretofore never existed, modeled on the Seal of the President of the United States clearly was done for future political use to help make the governor appear presidential. It's brilliant! The Zieber book documents this, it is cited. Don't get me wrong, I love stuff like this. This is a man who very carefuly manages his image. It makes Governor Romney look like a million,bucks behind it! 03:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An axonometric diagram of the president's podium

Here is a link showing an architectural axonometric diagram of the presidential podium. Interesting similarities with the podium Governor Romney had made for himself. Follow this link, take a look, what do you think?: http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/219509

03:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The caption on a photo of the podium in the article says:

• Governor Romney addresses a send-off ceremony for the 685th Finance Detachment of the Massachusetts National Guard. The podium is modeled on the presidential podium used at the White House. Governor Romney had the seal on the podium modeled on the Seal of the President of the United States. [30] Previous to the Romney administration, the office of governor did not have its own seal. Previous governors used the state seal.

Does the source, Heraldry in America: A Classic Survey of Coats of Arms and Insignia, say that Romney modeled the new seal on that of the U.S. Presidential seal? -Will Beback 23:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it says the seal was modeled on the Seal of the President of the United States, as it was produced in Romney's administration it seems no leap that the governor's staff did not "sneak" it onto the podium without his consent. Zieber suggests that the action was done to appear more presidential, and cited Gov. Reagan creating a seal for the governor of California (still in use). Thanks for making the pictures larger. 01:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How about if we simply say that "The podium and seal are modeled on the those of the U.S. President." That would be accurate and more NPOV. -Will Beback 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Will, it's fine with me to say the podium is modeled on the one at the White House or of the president's. Mention of the new seal should acknowledge it was produced durng Governor Romney's tenure, modeled on the presidentital seal, and one of the two statements: eitther that when he took office, the governor traditionally used the state seal; or that previous to his administrtion the office of the governor did not have a seal. There is no denying Governor Romney has a very carefully managed image and it is impressive, up there with presidents Reagan and Clinton. Of course running against Shannon O'Brien in '04, who had less than zero awareness of image making, there was no contest on that level. 16:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is why the addition to the caption is invalid.

1. All the information added to the caption is pure speculation.

2. While the podium may look like the White House podium, we have no idea of knowing if it was modeled after it.

3. Romney's administration DID NOT design the podium. A simple google image search shows that this is not the case.

Look. Jane Swift, Romney's predecessor used the same podium here: http://www.mass.gov/guard/E&RC/Operations%20Files/operations%20pic%2021.jpg

and here: http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/winter_2004/images/ft_sheriff2.jpg

and here: http://www.aallnet.org/chapter/llne/LLNENews/v22n3/MVC-010F.JPG.jpg

ALSO Swift's predecessor Paul Cellucci used the podium too: http://www.massbike.org/bikeways/neponset/cell0006a.jpg

Its clear that it is a standard podium used by Masachusetts Governors before Bush and Romney were both in office.

5.It is clear that the seal Romney uses in the picture is NOT designed after the White House seal. The White House seal has an eagle with arrows (see above). Romney is in fact using the Massachusetts coat of arms, just like his predecessors (note the pictures).

6. "Suggestions" by people (Zieber) are not appropriate information for Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias report facts, not speculation or points of view. --Michael16G 02:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] veterans

I would organize things by chronological order...

Here is a list of actions, and statements, in order, if you want to use as a reference:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/veterans

myclob 17:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure looks like a lot of fluff to me.Notmyrealname 01:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write it, but I did add a couple of things he did in 1993... the record started in 2005 when I first read it... but some of the stuff I put in, was taken out... I wasn't real proud of it, so I'm not going to try to put it back in, but, it was taken out by someone who was not signed in, and they didn't explain why they took it out... Like I say I wasn't real proud of it, but I just don't think the section is that difficult to write.... I did a google search of mitt romney and veteran, and looked at the first 20 or so pages that come up, and then looked on my page of all the Romney press releases for any time anone said anything about veterans... I have that on my page, and kind of like it better... it gives all the facts, and lets people read more about who did what... But I don't know70.142.206.0 02:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environment Deletion?

Atlanta44 deleted my posting in the environment section. Please explain why or I will put it back in. It referred to a current ranking of the MA's environmental spending record in a non-partisan magazine. Seems like it would be very relevant for those seeking to evaluate Romney's record in this area. Thanks! --Notmyrealname 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What was deleted? Please post here for people to see.--Michael16G 02:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Massachusetts has the country's sixth-largest park lands system. However, in 2006 Governing Magazine ranked the state 48 out of 50 for per-capita park funding and 50th when calculated as a percentage of personal income.^[1]

I really think this additon is out of place and pretty unimportant. The environemnt section is about enviornmental policy (i.e. the Greeenhouse Gas Pact, off shore drilling, wind farms, etc.). The source shows that the funding pretains primarily to recreational facilites (i.e. pools, playgrounds, paths, and buildings). This has more to do with Romney's budgetary priorities than it does his enviornmental record.--Sierraonfire 19:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting an explanation. I think it would be helpful if more editors of this page got into that habit. That said, I disagree with your analysis. The section is "Environment," not "Environmental policy." In any case, I think his budget priorities are better sign of his policies than mere statements of principle. (In fact, I would recommend putting his positions about Arctic drilling in some other section related to pronouncements that have nothing to do with his actual governing. But I digress). The article specifically mentions "state parks, forests, and parkways" before the other items you mention. I think most people in MA would agree that these things would come under the heading of environment (thus "Environmental groups say the cuts ...". Also, according to the article "In addition to the parks' maintenance budget, Romney sliced a wide range of environmental items, such as $154,590 for environmental law enforcement, $288,900 dedicated to helping communities provide cleaner water to residents, and $181,886 for hazardous waste cleanup." So, I think it's pretty clear that this is equal in pertinance to the entire paragraph dedicated to the Cape Wind Project, that in the end, Romney doesn't really have anything to do with. If others think this doesn't belong here, I would ask that we figure out a place for it. "Public Parks"? Environmental Stewardship?--Notmyrealname 02:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the section is fine, although I do agree that ANWR is out of place. I would leave it where it is, and then move it to the presidential section if he decides to run. This would fall under a presidential platform section. I would keep cape wind in this category as Romney has much to do with it. Approvals muct be run through the state environemtal secretary (who reports to Romney) and proposed legislation would give him and future governors the chance to veto it or lobby the coast guard to veto it.--65.96.5.43 22:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but how about the info on the budget cuts mentioned above and the fact that the parks system is ranked last in the nation? Where should that go?Notmyrealname 04:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1994 Election

The 1994 election section needs some revision. It currently reads "The general election between Romney and Senator Ted Kennedy was extremely competitive leading up to election day. The debates between Romney and Kennedy were lively, and the polls showed Romney only slightly behind Kennedy." But then it says that one poll put Romney ahead. Finally, Romney loses by 17 points (what George Will calls a "drubbing"). So, as it reads now, Romney was only slightly behind (and was ahead) until election day, but then lost by 17 points (which no politician would claim is close). This needs to be revised to say that two months before the election one poll put Romney within the polls margin of error, but then he got clobbered, but not by as much as everyone else who ran against Kennedy. Plus, what is the basis for saying the debates were "lively"?--Notmyrealname 06:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romney's participation in his faith

Governor Romney's religous beliefs and participation in his faith is a part of his story, and who he is, it quite appropritely informs his political actions (opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage). In the last three days, three different users have edited the article to make mention of some of this, only to have it deleted by the users RedSox777 and WaveRider, and listed as absurd, or citing that other potential presidential candidates do not have their religion described in their articles. First, there is mention of religion in several politicians' articles; second, few potential candidates have been as religously active as Gov. Romney, serving s two forms of priests, then as bishop, and having participated on a church board and personally financing the building of a temple in Belmont, Massachusetts. A sub-section on religion in the biography section, or its own section? How should we appropriately list these pertinenet part of this potential presidential candidate's life? This is all cited information, it is not conjecture. Continued diligent deletion of this information is not a resolution, and pushes the article towards fluffiness inviting third-party review. Constant removal of references to his participation in his faith suggests bias. 13:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A religon secion is completely unprecedented. Why would we make a religon section for one politican and not the other thousands on wikipedia? He is the Governor of Massachusetts, not the pope. Many of the claims in this section are not backed up with sources. Claims about joining preisthoods and financing churhes are not sourced, therefore they are invalid until proven. My guess is that Romney did contribute to his church, but so does virtually every other politican (and it isnt mentioned in their profiles).

What can be sourced is that Romney was a lay minister (bishop) who voulenteer his time with his church during his years in buisness. This is worth mentioning, perhaps in the buisness section of his life.

The only suggested "bias" present is from those who feel that Romney needs to be idefined by his religon. This is not the case with any other politican. Nobody else has a religon section, not even ordained ministers who have served in office (see Mike Huckabee). This section will have to be discussed on the talk page. Please do not repost until a concencus amoungst the editors has been reached.--24.218.109.71 17:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Romney is not embarassed by his faith, he is proud of it, and as he cites his religous beliefs in policy making it is appropriate here. To suggest being a mormon bishop is somehow akin to being a lay minister or deacon is incorrect. Romney was a bisop (see wiki article) and a priest (LDS term) in two of the priesthoods of the Church of Latter-day Saints. This isn't a Rotary Club office but a religous one, and one few LDS men achieve. The wiki bios of several potential U.S. presidential candidates do mention religion, and many more members of congress and state governors.

Romney's faith is frequently mentioned in the conservative press. See footnote 15 from the National Review "In 2008, Will It Be Mormon in America?", number 18 from the Wall Street Journal "Latter-day President?: A Mitt Romney candidacy would test the religious right". His faith is clearly noteworthy, but should always be presented in regards to NPOV policy.--Notmyrealname 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Involvement within the Mormon church means nothing, because we have no paid ministry. Everyone is involved. I teach a sunday school. I don't know of very many men who make it to their 50's, who have enough money to support their family, and the calling won't hurt them that bad, who won't be called as bishops. I think we can have higher standards than those publications that have to make a living by selling tantilating stories. Also, do we have to create a new catigory, every time someone new wants to talk about a subject. Please copy and paste this to the other place where is faith is discussed. Just like your mother said, I'm tired of cleaning this place up! myclob 02:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Romney's faith is noteworthy, but does not require its own section at this point. Why would Romney require a religon section if nobody else has one? His faith is already mentioned on the page and in the info box. It isn't hidden, its in the inital bio section and his missonary work is mentioned.

His work as a mormon "bishop" (I am unfamiliar with mormon terms) is widely characterized as "lay" ministry work

Here:http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/08/28/romneys_listed_as_big_givers_to_charity/

and Here:http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8502

and Here:http://www.masslive.com/springfield/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1151481927311090.xml&coll=1

I'm curious did you read these articles you've added links for? I did. I see little mention of what is being discussed here. looks like the returns of a Google search for "bishop" and "Romney". One article's mention is of Catholic Bishop O'Malley. 68.163.142.93 13:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

He volunteerd his time as a lay offical during hs buisness career. I cannot find anything about Romney being a "preist." Unless we can source it, we cannot specualte.

The bottom line is that Romney's faith should recieve the same ammount of focus as oher politicans and candidates. It looks like the page is currently in line with that standard--Michael16G 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Romney should have an entire religion section, but his faith probably deserves a little more discussion than your average Protestant candidate. As cited above, even the sympathetic articles in the conservative press realize this. Religion was a big issue in the races for JFK and Lieberman, and even Kerry's relationship with the Catholic Church. This topic should be written about thoughtfully and respectfully. It probably doesn't need more than the current mentions on this page, but should get more digital ink if he officially declares he is running.--Notmyrealname 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The potential for prejudice based on his relatively unknown religion seems to be a good reason for a bit more discussion. While the man is welathier than most, gifts of several millions of dollars to a church, temple, or mosque, by a potential candidate for U.S. president warrants some scrutiny. In one sense an early openess (v. secretness) can serve to demystify, even innoculate Mitt against future prejudice. 68.163.142.93 13:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that the current mention of Romney's religon is sufficent for this page. A Religon section is overkill. More should be added in a presidential section if the issue of his religon becomes a defining factor. As Notmyrealname points out, authors will have to be respectful if this type of section is needed in the future. Seperatly, I am not sure why Romney needs to be "scrutinized" for his charatable givings to his church or other organizations. I am also puzzeled as to why Romney needs to be "innoculated" from preceptions of his faith and why some think that wikipedia is a forum for this procedure.--Sierraonfire 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitt; Wilcken,...

Whereas I doubt that Mr. Romney would be named f/ a mitten, nor glove,... Someone, please say the definitions f/ "Mitt",... & "Wilcken".

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 06:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what the question is here, or where "Wilcken" comes from (Willard?). As for the name "Mitt" I beleive it is part of his given name. I guess your question should be directed at Mr. Romney's parents.--Sierraonfire 00:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome Home Bill

This[19] appears to be a partial revert of my edit[20]. Some questions I have:

1. What does it mean to "file" legislation when you're the governor? I know that's what the press release says, and forgive me for my ignorance if I'm really off-base here, but isn't it the legislature that makes the legislation? I see all the time that governors present plans and proposals, but I guess I just don't understand what "filing" refers to exactly here.
2. Related to above: where does it say that Romney developed the Welcome Home Bill with the legislature?
3. What was wrong with the ref and cite templates?
4. In general, we need to cut WAY down on citing press releases as sources (see WP:RS), unless they are attributed - like, "Romney issued a press release announcing..." or otherwise corroborated by third party sources. Schi 01:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In Massachusetts a governor can "file" legislaion with the state legislature. This means that he and his staff wrote, developed and created a piece of legislation to be considered and voted on by the legislature. The Governor can also "support" legislation developed by other lawmakers. In this case, Romney wrote the intital legisaltion himself. He didnt simply "support" another lawmaker's bill.

Additionally the sources show that Romney and the legislature worked out the details of the plan togeather. They incorperated some of the ideas from the legislation that Romney filed and some from other lawmakers (From the globe article):

"The bill, which Romney and leading legislators said they hope to have signed into law by Veterans Day on Nov. 11, could win approval from the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs as early as this week. It incorporates several ideas that Romney proposed in a similar bill last spring."

I agree that press releases are not the best sources. Third parties are better. In this case however, the Globe article menitons Romney filing veterans legislation. The Press Release simply shows the time frame of the filing. This seems like an acceptable usage.

Also, it seems like one of the refereced sources was deleted by another editor. I am not sure why this was removed. It was a valid source, so I put it back.--Waverider5 14:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In-state tuition bill

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

My concerns with the edits by 65.96.5.43 are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] and honorary chairman of the Commonwealth Political Action Committee.[

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

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

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

myclob 23:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Does this belong in "education"

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

Also:

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

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

[edit] Put this under trivia or somewhere else...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Encyclopedic style

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

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

19:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Romney ever serve in the armed forces?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The continued edit war

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

[edit] Great grandfather's polygamy

Several editors have deleted the following addition to the trivia section: *Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, had five wives.^[2]

The editors have offered the following reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, here are three references from mainstream political sources that make note of the connection: [21], [22], [23].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the clarification. I was more concerned with the tone of the other editors. Here's another article that makes a very good case as to why the issue is relevant. [24]. This is in addition to the Herald link cited above. These are just the ones that make the link between these two issues. As I have noted before, Miles Romney's polygamy is quite frequently mentioned in the mainstream press regarding his electability. Miles had to flee the US to Mexico, where Mitt Romney's father, George, was born.Notmyrealname 00:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Trivia section

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

[edit] Fan sites

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

Romney Sites - National

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

Romney Sites - By State

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

Romney Sites - By Organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I presume you're aiming for a Featured article, but you might as well eventually seek a review for the status of "Good Article" as a way-station toward "Featured."
But first, fully responding to the existing peer review is a next step. (For example, I haven't converted any web links to foot notes in more than a month).
See Wikipedia:What is a featured article. In-line citations are the biggest technical step.

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

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

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

[edit] Updating links...

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

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

The link comes after this statement:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] why doesn't #78 link?

1. 78 does not link to this article:

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

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

[edit] Research resources

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

• Helman, Scott. "Legislative victories elusive for Romney", Boston Globe, 2005-11-18. Retrieved on 2006-12-12.
• Johnson, Glen. "Romney speaks to two audiences in final State of the State speech", Boston Globe, Associated Press, 2006-01-19. Retrieved on 2006-12-12.
• Allen, Mike. "Can a Mormon be President?", Time, 2006-12-04. Retrieved on 2006-12-12.
• Johnson, Glen. "Romney Forges On, Heedless of GOP Losses", Washington Post, Associated Press, 2006-11-21. Retrieved on 2006-12-12.
• Barrett, Jennifer. "'Person of Faith'", Newsweek, 2006-06-07. Retrieved on 2006-12-12.
• Shulman, Ken. "A Man and a Woman", Newsweek, 2002-10-11. Retrieved on 2006-12-12.