Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Business positions in infobox

I recently added (diff) Romney's notable jobs to the infobox. I did this since the purpose of the infobox (per WP:IBX) is "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears," and up until now, his positions as CEO of major institutions have been conspicuously absent from the infobox. If anyone has a better idea of how to do this, then by all means, but I think it is long overdue that this information be incorporated into the infobox in some fashion. Regards —Eustress ^talk 21:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Aid Mitchell Reiss' involvement in a campaign promoting a terrorist group became a liability

• Romney advisor advocating for terrorist group salon.com Aug 23, 2011
• Romney foreign policy aide undermined by Salon story salon.com Oct 6, 2011.--91.39.82.46 (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

At most, something for Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, not nearly important enough for here. He's a minor figure and hardly the only person who wants the MEK off the list. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"Part of a series on" navbox

Regarding a sidebar navigation aid listing politician's bio, article about political positions, etc., some editors find such a template user friendly, others clunky/superfluous. In my opinion, the one for Sarah Palin-related articles, Template:SarahPalinSegmentsUnderInfoBox, is quite attractive; Mitt's, Template:Mitt Romney series [Edited: old one] not so much. In any case and for what it's worth, here's a breakdown compiled from Category:Public image of American politicians:

1. Public image of Mitt Romney - used (but not on all Romney-related articles)
2. Public image of George W. Bush - not used
3. Public image of Mike Huckabee - not used
4. Public image of Rudy Giuliani - not used [Note: It's since been placed there.---Ed.] (Template:Rudy Giuliani series sometimes removed where once appeared)
5. Cultural and political image of John McCain - used
6. George McGovern in popular culture - not used
7. Public image of Barack Obama - used
8. Public image of Sarah Palin - used
9. Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt - not used

FWIW, I think including such a template helps readers looking for information about Romney's curent campaign more quickly find the pertinent article than their being required to scroll down to the pertinent part of the article and notice the link. Thoughts?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you go back to Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 7#Template you'll see that there was an agreement to get rid of that series box thing. That's why it wasn't there. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A series template helps people navigate to the campaign and positions articles (both of which likely to be of some interest for at least the next few months) but I'll bow to whatever consensus dictates. Be that as it may, the way I read the archived discussion you linked to is two votes for getting rid of the template:Mitt Romney from out of the template:Mitt Romney series and one vote for simply sidestepping the proposed fix by simply removing the series template altogether--which someone did, and no one fixed the template and put it back. Till I did so, recently, that is.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-reading Wasted Time R argument from the archived thread, he seems to be advocating for an entirely chornological basis for sidebar navigational aids. I suppose this concept is based on such sidebar nav aids as Template:Campaignbox Napoleonic Wars, which tries to be chronological (at least as much as possible) in the ordering of its members: "English Wars," ("Gunboat War" – "Dano-Swedish War") – "Third Coalition" – "Pomeranian War" – "Fourth Coalition" – "Russo-Turkish War" – "Finnish War" – "Anglo-Turkish War" – "Peninsular War" – "Anglo-Russian War" – "Anglo-Swedish War" – "Fifth Coalition" – "French invasion of Russia" – "War of 1812" – "Sixth Coalition" ("German Campaign") – "Swedish-Norwegian War" – "Seventh Coalition" (as opposed to the bottom navigation banner, template:Napoleonic Wars, which lists hundreds of articles having some relationship to the topic).

In the case of Mitt Romney, the bottom banner includes articles having some relationship to the topic, whereas the series sidebar only includes articles directly related to it. This the John McCain bottom banner and sidebar series templates do as well. However, Wasted Time R makes the case that the McCain series is distinct in that it includes an entry for McCain's life before he entered the U.S. Congress. That is, it includes links to articles for

• McCain's early life
• his US Congressional/Senate career till 2000
• his career 2001–present
• his 2000 pres campaign, and
• his 2008 pres campaign

-- whereas Romney's only includes articles covering the periods

1. 2011–2012
2. 2007–2008, and
3. 2003–2007.

--However, I think there is no necessity that a series of articles be chronological at all. For example, the Wikipedia sidebar nav aid template:Criminal law is not chronological in nature (and, the collection criteria for inclusion in this sidebar are not the same as that for the bottom-banner nav aid Template:Types of crime). As for media outside of Wikipedia, when I Googled "New York Times" and "series," the very first example I came across was not chronological: the series "Your Brain on Computers" by Matt Richtel, et al. When one brings up one article in this series, say, "Growing Up Digital, Wired for Distraction", if you scroll down to the pgraf directly below the lede, you'll find a link that reads "Previous Articles in the Series"; and, if you click on that link, you'll come to a list of links to the articles included in the series: "Growing Up Digital, Wired for Distraction," "Digital Devices Deprive Brain of Needed Downtime," "Outdoors and Out of Reach, Studying the Brain," "The Risks of Parenting While Plugged In," "Attached to Technology and Paying a Price," "An Ugly Toll of Technology: Impatience and Forgetfulness," and "More Americans Sense a Downside to an Always Plugged-In Existence." So, apparently the New York Times, at least, consider it user friendly to include a navigational aid toward the very top of an article allowing readers access to other articles within a particular series of articles. This option appears to be used on occasion here at Wikipedia, as well, both with concern to groups of articles that are entirely chronological in nature and with series of articles not wholly chronological.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My issue wasn't about chronology but extent of scope, but whatever, I'm okay with the way it is now. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Could family life be broken out?

I notice other politicians have their family life broken out (Obama has 'family and personal life' McCain has 'first marriage' 'second marriage' and even 'growing family'). I see some information on Mitt's family situation in the "between campaigns" section but, seeing that family members do not magically appear between political campaigns, it might be helpful to readers if it was broken out in a separate section. The information seems good, just the structure needs a little work.

--Canadiandy talk 05:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What you call family life is included in context in the chronological narrative wherever it occurs because in Romney's case, as it is with most people, his religious and family life is intertwined with his business and political life. For example, Romney left Stanford but returned to BYU because of Ann Davies, and in part he took the Olympics job in Utah because of her health problems. He was involved in a residency dispute when he ran for governor of Massachusetts. More recently he has been criticized for having a lot of homes and for not living in Massachusetts, his supposed home state, with some even claiming he committed vote fraud by voting in Massachusetts. But again, the couple live a lot of the time away from Massachusetts in order to be closer to their grandchildren and to provide environments where her health can benefit. Yes, I realize many WP articles have "Personal life" sections, but to me those are the inferior articles. Whatever happens to a person in any part of their life at time T1 can have an effect on any other part of their life at time T2, and keeping the chronology as integrated as possible is generally the best way to handle a BLP at GA/FA level. When was the last time you read a real biography in a bookstore or library that had a chapter called "Personal life" that was out of sequence with everything else? Never, because professional biographers realize that's an absurd way to treat any subject.

Now if you look at the John McCain article, which you reference, you'll see that it does use chronological sequence, but has more descriptive section headers. I would like the current "Experiences from 1965 to 1975" section to read something like "University and missionary years, marriage and children" to clue the reader into its contents better. But other editors thought this was "clunky" the last time it was discussed. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, WastedTimeR, the article seems pretty fair and I wouldn't want to mess with it. Far be it for me to want to "clunky-ize" any article (smiles). Just an outside the box, why not put it inside the box? Meaning, is it possible to include a family timeline within an infobox or some other graphic format? This might help readers navigate through the muddy waters of such a complex life.--Canadiandy talk 01:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what additional info you're looking for, could you give some specifics? The existing infobox already includes the name of his wife, a link to her article, the year of their marriage, and the names of all their children and years of birth. If you're looking for a big picture chart that shows Mitt's place in the greater Romney family tree, that also exists, see the Pratt–Romney family page. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to respond so slowly. I was thinking more a chronological (living?) timeline, and if someone wanted bonus points it could run parallel to his political timeline. I know we're all busy and don't expect to see anyone take it on (I'm swamped) but I think it would be a good tool to create a synopsis of his complex life. Maybe for future editors.--Canadiandy talk 01:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean something like what Timeline of evolution or Timbuktu has? I've seen this done fairly often for scientific articles, not often for biographies, but I suppose it could be done here. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if one of the following articles/templates would serve as a model for such an article section about Romney's political and/or personal timelines or not: Ali, Austen, Émile Bernard, Byron, Fairuz, Abramoff, Rambhadracharya, Kwame Kilpatrick, Machiavelli, Obama, Tagore, Ahmad Shamlou, van Gogh, Wollstonecraft.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow Hodgson! An impressive sample to choose from. The one I liked best is the Austen timeline. The three categories I would see best applied would be (Family, Business, Politics). This would be even more appropriate as Austen's 'political' timeline merely reflects the politics of the day whereas Romney's reflects the politics he was involved in and possibly influenced.--Canadiandy talk 15:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Canadiandy1. If u'v enough time, post most-essential dates and/or haphazardly composed entries of what transpired on them here on my sandbox page & I'll Google up n otherwise spruce up its data points n fill em in to maybe an Austen-style double-/triple-columned table of MR chronologies.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Corporate donations

Per MastCell's source, "companies are not allowed to contribute directly to federal candidates".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Fat&Happy (talk · contribs) has already clarified that here, which looks good to me. MastCell ^Talk 04:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The source is also careful to not characterize Romney as the candidate of Wall Street, for example by pointing out that Goldman Sachs employees were also the biggest source of money for Obama. So, I'm concerned about lack of context. Also, this news report seems to be a snapshot based on a few months' worth of financial reports that were current as of July 2011, and I think there's already been at least one further round of financial reports, so there may be a context problem there too. The third quarter financial reports are now out, and they show Romney had a 73% increase over the second quarter in the number of contributors in all fifty states, so his financial base seems to have broadened quite a bit since the report cited by MastCell.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the wake of Citizens United and SuperPACs and more aggressive direct advertising for candidates by such bodies, companies essentially are directly contributing. And on top of previously existing and still ongoing 'bundlers' practices, explaining where a candidate's money comes from is more difficult than ever. But this is not specific to Romney. Moneyed interests giving money to political candidates, especially Republican candidates, is a dog-bites-man story, and there's nothing really exceptional here yet. So I would be in favor of removing the newly added text and awaiting further and deeper understanding of Romney's money sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Money is obviously a big part of campaigning, and so it's a worthy topic for this Wikipedia article. President Obama was the first candidate since Watergate to turn down public funding with all of its attendant limitations, and it will be interesting to see what happens this time around regarding both Romney and Obama. But I agree that the outdated stuff added today (with its wikilinked list of the most hated firms on Wall Street) was a bit hasty and could be shelved for the time being.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Just looked at the newspaper and this front-page NYT story from today updates findings. The gist is that Romney's Wall Street support is a lot broader than the three firms named in the previous article change, and that a lot of this support is taking away from Obama's past Wall Street support. This would probably be worth mentioning at some point. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks from that NYT piece like the biggest portion of Romney's third quarter fundraising came from California, not New York. Maybe stuff like that would be worth mentioning in the sub-article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There's been dedicated coverage in multiple major media outlets (e.g. Washington Post and New York Times). I think a single sentence describing the major sources of financial support for Romney's 2012 campaign is relevant, appropriate and not excessive in this massive biography. But I'll defer to the more regular editors of the article. MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll propose a draft later this evening. One notable aspect is that Romney hasn't used a dime of his own money this time around.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(Undent)Here's a draft:

As of September 30, 2011 Romney had not spent any of his own money on his campaign; by that time, he led the Republican field in fundraising, but much money had not yet entered the contest, and new groups will be able to use unlimited donations for advertisements according to the Supreme Court's First Amendment ruling in 2010.

{{cite web |url= http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/10/barack-obama-winning-presidential-money-race.html |title= Third-Quarter Campaign Finance Reports Show Barack Obama Winning Presidential Money Race |author=Beckel, Michael |coauthors= |date=October 16, 2011 |month= |year= |work=OpenSecretsBlog |publisher=[[Center for Responsive Politics]] |accessdate=October 16, 2011 |postscript=  (Michael Beckel is an established expert on money in politics, and is a former senior editorial fellow at ''[[Mother Jones]]'' where he has written on that subject).}}

Seems to me this is the key info. We could compare Romney's take to Obama's, but I think that's getting ahead of ourselves since we're nowhere near the general election yet. If we start getting into that, then I think we'd have to discuss the likelihood that the nominees will reject public financing, et cetera. So, I'm not for discussing at this early date how Romney and Obama compare, or how they are fighting for the same donors. If we start discussing how much Romney has raised in New York, we'd also have to discuss that he's raised more in California, so I think the draft sentence above is adequate for now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with saying Romney hasn't spent any of his own money yet (since that's a marked departure from his previous campaigns), but it's hard to compare his fundraising with Perry's due to the staggered starts, and the rest that you write is mostly speculation that I would leave out. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I shortened it, and put it in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So based on your addition to the article, I take it you are opposed to including the material from the Times and Washington Post about Wall Street as a major source of Romney's 2012 fundraising? And that you prefer instead to include material from the center for Responsive Politics blog? MastCell ^Talk 17:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have an open mind about it, but let's be careful about weight. For example, consider the length of Barack_Obama#2012_presidential_campaign.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That should definitely be expanded, but let's not drift off into WP:OTHERSTUFFland. We're talking about one sentence about fundraising, which I don't think anyone can seriously call undue weight in such a mammoth biography. Personally, I think we should follow the emphases of the Post and Times over those of the CRP blog. The latter is a reasonable source, but if you're talking about weight, then it seems like a no-brainer to go with the former. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My brain tells me that we should look at more than the name of the publication. The CRP thing has a lot of depth and detail that isn't in the MSM. Anyway, the Biston Globe is also reporting that Romney hasn't used his own money, so I'll add that as a source in a few minutes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting the sense that we're starting with preferred text and then looking for sources to support it. The emphasis on Romney not spending his own money appears to be fairly obscure in reliable sources, but it seems like a high priority for editors of this article. My sense is that we should follow the emphases of reliable sources and try to reflect those emphases proportionately. Currently, there seems to be significantly more reliably sourced coverage on Wall Street support for Romney than on the fact that he hasn't yet contributed his own money. Does anyone else (besides the two of us) have an opinion on this? MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't invent any "preferred text". I read it at CRP, discussed it here, reached consensus, and inserted it. Then you objected that CRP is not a weighty source, so I added the Boston Globe. There seems to be no way to please you, MastCell. As discussed above, the NY Times reports that he's receiving more money from California than from New York, et cetera. Should we make this Wikipedia article give the opposite impression? Also see WP: NOTNEWSPAPER; we don't automatically follow a certain set of high profile newspapers whenever they have a meme.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding consensus, I only see one other person commenting here (Wasted Time R), and he wrote that Romney's cash haul from Wall Street is "probably worth mentioning at some point". I share that viewpoint. Do you object to inserting that material? MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I do object to inserting it before we see a draft here at the talk page. Also see other concerns expressed above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Much of Romney's fundraising success came from Wall Street and the financial sector." Sources: "Wall Street investing in Romney", Washington Post; "Romney Beating Obama in a Fight for Wall St. Cash", New York Times; "Wall Street cash shifts to Romney from Obama", Reuters; "Goldman Favors Romney Over Obama in Race for Wall Street Funds", Bloomberg; etc, etc.

This text seems short, to the point, and reflective of a major emphasis found in multiple reliable sources. Thirteen words hardly seems like undue weight - and if weight is a concern, then surely this sentence is better supported than one about Romney not spending his own money. Personally, I think there's room for both. I would appreciate any comments, particularly from editors besides myself and Anythingyouwant since we've dominated this thread so far. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm going to give my opinion even if no one cares what it is. I think the word "much" is weaselly and ambiguous. We know from the New York Times that Romney received more success in California, so this sentence would be misleading. Together with the self-funding sentence, this would also be undue weight, and it ought to go in a sub-article if it goes in anywhere. The proposed sentence provides no context whatsoever, because it does not compare to Romney's past, or to other GOP candidates, or to Obama. That's just for starters.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the text closely reflects the emphases found in reliable sources (which, admittedly, may be different from the items we personally find most relevant). MastCell ^Talk 19:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, reliable sources make clear that only employees and not companies are giving money. Reliable sources emphasize a comparison to "Obama" - see the headlines you quote, almost all of which mention Obama. The enduring notability of this information is questionable, because Romney may not get nominated, in which case the comparison to Obama will have been premature. I'll step aside now, and see if others have thoughts about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Writing these campaign sections is always difficult, because writing history as it happens is basically a fool's errand. This one will have to be reworked after the campaign is over and books are written, just like the 2008 campaign section was. But you have to do the best you can as the campaign is happening. Regarding this question, I'm on the fence, and will try to look at it more tonight if I get a chance. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Romney's image as a flip-flopper

Our account of the 2008 campaign properly reports Romney's flip-flop problem:

At a Saint Anselm College debate, Huckabee and McCain pounded away at Romney's image as a flip flopper.[143] Indeed, this label would stick to Romney through the campaign[128] (but was one that Romney rejected as unfair and inaccurate, except for his acknowledged change of mind on abortion).[130]

The subject isn't mentioned with regard to the current campaign, so I added this, after the statement about Romney's problem arising from the Massachusetts health care law:

In addition, he continued to be dogged by the charge of flip-flopping, with conservative columnist George Will calling him "a recidivist reviser of his principles".

(For convenience, a reflist follows)

Wasted Time R wasted little time in deleting this, saying, "the jury is still out on whether flip-flopping rep will significantly damage Romney's chances, and one Politico article about one George Will column is not strong enough to say othewise".

This is an ongoing political campaign, so the jury is still out on pretty much everything, such as Romney's benefiting from the "next in line" tendency, which we include. It's disingenuous to suggest that the assertion rests on one article. It's been a fairly extensive theme of Romney's media coverage. I picked George Will to illustrate it because, although he's a conservative, he's an establishment Republican type who might have been expected to support Romney. Numerous other illustrations could readily be provided. The general point is that Romney has been criticized by conservatives who consider him a RINO, who don't think that he's a true conservative, and who don't trust many of his current statements on issues because he's taken more liberal positions in the past and they think he's now merely saying what they want to hear. Is there any good-faith dispute that such opinions are significant? Is it necessary that I waste my own time by finding several more citations that reiterate what everybody knows? JamesMLane t c 17:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

My view is that we should focus on plain news and neutral information, instead of turning this article into a forum for competing opinion pieces. Of course, there is a flip side to George Will's opinion, here. Better to leave them both out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Wikipedia article should report, as fact, that Romney is a craven opportunist who says whatever he thinks will help him politically. That assertion, for which considerable evidence could be adduced, would violate NPOV, because we don't adopt opinions. There is, however, no NPOV violation in reporting facts about opinions. The opinion that Romney is a flip-flopper is clearly a significant one, particularly on the right wing of the Republican Party. Your citation doesn't undercut that. You cite a Washington Post writer who says that some of Romney's rivals have flip-flopped and that Romney continues to defend the health care law. That's not at all inconsistent with reporting the widespread distrust of Romney on this score.

Incidentally, in the five months since that Post piece appeared, I think that Romney has flip-flopped on the question whether the Massachusetts law should be a model for the nation, but that's relevant only to the question we don't address (is Romney a flip-flopper) and has no bearing on the question we do address (does Romney continue to be dogged by the charge of flip-flopping). His more recent statements on the subject might be included in the "political positions" article but, as of right now, probably wouldn't be important enough for the main bio article. That's because the main bio article shouldn't get into the merits of the charge, but should at least note its existence. JamesMLane t c 20:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Will's piece is a primary source about Will's opinion. Secondary sources about Will's opinion would be preferable, and NPOV would require secondary sources about other opinions as well. All of that kind of thing might crowd out non-opinion information, and this article is already getting long. Can we wait a few weeks to see if anyone is still talking about Will's opinion piece?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I yanked JamesMLane's addition because the days of George Will being influential are pretty much long gone, the days of him being an objective observer never really started, and the only thing given as saying his opinion was influential was one short Politico bit. I've grown increasingly reluctant to use Politico for 'trend' cites because they publish about 20 pieces a day and half of them document trends that are never seen again. And the Will op-ed is especially dubious itself because in 2007 Will wrote a column saying Romney's position changes didn't matter. So Will has effectively flip-flopped on Romney's flip-flops. Now, I am certainly willing for this section to describe why Romney's had so much trouble breaking about above the 25% level in polls despite the haplessness of his opposition. But I've seen at least five factors given: Too establishment, Romneycare, lacking core beliefs, lacking warmth and human connection, Mormon. How do we know how much flip-flopping (the third one) has hurt him compared to the others? If someone has written a good analysis of this, backed by some poll numbers, I'd be happy to include that. But to rely upon one column by a has-been, no. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You guys have brilliantly refuted the argument that Will's opinion is, by itself, so important that it should be reported. Of course, no one has actually made that argument, so your work isn't quite done.

As I said, I picked the Will piece to illustrate a more general point. That means that the focus on Will is misconceived. What matters is the question I asked that neither of you directly answered:

The general point is that Romney has been criticized by conservatives who consider him a RINO, who don't think that he's a true conservative, and who don't trust many of his current statements on issues because he's taken more liberal positions in the past and they think he's now merely saying what they want to hear. Is there any good-faith dispute that such opinions are significant?

Wasted doesn't directly answer, but seems to suggest that no assertion can be included unless it's directly supported by polling data. That standard, if applied uniformly, would certainly enable us to trim this article radically. I suggest a more realistic standard: Is an assertion supported by the type of evidence that reasonable people generally rely on in forming judgments about that type of subject matter? In articles about public figures, we frequently quote journalistic assessments of the state of a campaign. So, for example, when I Googled "Romney and 'flip-flop'" and got more than seven million hits, the first one had the gang at Fox News attacking Romney for flip-flopping and offering the assessment that it would be a problem for him. Take my original edit -- that he continues to be dogged by the charge -- and substitute that citation. Would that work for you? JamesMLane t c 03:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

James, there's a proposal pending above to actually clearly state two issues that he's flip-flopped about. Wouldn't that be more useful to readers than just generally saying that he's been accused of flip-floppery?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

James, I just want better sourcing than a George Will column or a bunch of bloviators on cable TV news. It really is an interesting question about why Romney can't break the 25% barrier, but you haven't convinced me that it's the flip-flopping charge. Most of Romney's big position changes came before his 2008 run, not before this run, and thus are less likely to have an effect this time, especially with the economy the primary issue. And it's notable that on the one new issue since 2008 that's most likely to hurt him, Romneycare, he hasn't backed down from it (instead of just saying it was a big mistake and apologizing, he's made this somewhat tortured case for how it's great for the state but awful for the nation). Google hits don't tell the story either; for example, "Obama and 'flip-flop'" gets 31 million hits, yet it's not something that Obama is known for or has suffered from politically. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To Wasted Time R: You previously refuted the suggestion that we should assert the importance of George Will's opinion. You've now refuted the suggestion that we should assert flipfloppery as the cause of Romney's 25% poll standing. Neither of these suggestions has been advanced here, however.

Please reread my actual addition. I said that Romney has "continued to be dogged by the charge of flip-flopping...." The point is not that the charge is accurate, or that it's torpedoing Romney's campaign (although both of those are valid areas for inquiry) -- just that the charge is being widely made, as it was in 2008. Besides Will and Hume in the citations I provided, it's been made by numerous other commentators, by other candidates in the debates (Huntsman has made an ad about it), and by the DNC. Just in the last week or so, Romney's retreat from his previous stance on AGW was widely reported as another instance in which he previously held a centrist position but has now shifted markedly rightward in order to appease the extreme right-wingers who control the Republican primary process.

Note that our discussion of the 2008 campaign doesn't cite poll data or make sweeping claims about the impact of flipfloppery. It just reports it as one of the themes used by Romney's opponents to hammer him. If Huckabee and McCain raising the point merits a sentence in the 2008 coverage, then Huntsman and Perry doing so merits a sentence in the 2012 coverage.

On the subject of the prospective impact, you state: "Most of Romney's big position changes came before his 2008 run, not before this run, and thus are less likely to have an effect this time, especially with the economy the primary issue." There may be some lessening of the effect, but I'm doubtful. He has the general "flip-flop" problem that it's a bad image to have with voters of any ideology, but his more serious problem is with conservatives in particular. They don't trust his espousal of right-wing views now, when it's now to his political advantage, because when he was running in Massachusetts he was frequently on the other side, when the more liberal stance was to his political advantage. His consistency since 2007 won't impress them. He's been running for President full-time since then and it's consistently been to his advantage to appeal to the nationwide Republican primary electorate, which is conservative. At any rate, neither your speculation about the impact nor mine belongs in the article, which is why my edit didn't address the impact. We do know, as an objective fact, that Romney's critics are, rightly or wrongly, continuing to hit him on this, and his opponents have made the political judgment that it's worth spending limited resources (debate time and ad money) on this point. Those facts justify saying that he continues to be dogged by the charge.

Opinion writers and opposing candidates will say everything under the sun. If this is an objective fact, then instead of giving me WaPo and Fox News opinion pieces, give me WaPo and Fox News (or the like) straight news stories saying that Romney is being "dogged by" (or equivalent words) the charge of flip-flopping. Two substantial straight news pieces (don't laugh about Fox News, their website pieces are usually unobjectionable and even better they almost never become deadlinks) and in it will go. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this belongs in the article (call me a flip-flopper), but there are quite a few straight-news pieces: Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, BusinessWeek, CBS News (specifically about climate change), USA Today ("Republican rivals' stabs at 'Romneycare' gaining traction"). MastCell ^Talk 03:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But the first (in the part I can read) just says opponents make the charge, the second says he largely escaped such attacks until early October, when they "might" start having an effect, the third says Perry's planning large-scale negative attacks on this count, the fourth is a good source for the political positions subarticle but doesn't establish much damage now, and the fifth talks more about attacks on Romneycare than attacks than flip-flops. Only the second of these (the Globe piece) is along the lines of what I was looking for. Maybe after the next debate next week this will be clearer. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Romney's "I’ve been as consistent as human beings can be" quote from yesterday convinced me that this should now be included. I've used the Globe and CBS News sources from above as well as a WaPo one from yesterday. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

To Anythingyouwant: Your comment gets to the distinction between (1) reporting that the opinion has been expressed, and (2) reporting the principal facts on which each side relies in supporting or opposing the opinion. The second task is usually harder, but I agree with you that it's valuable. Nevertheless, this is not an either-or situation. We can give readers the facts with the pro-and-con about a couple of Romney's major alleged flipflops, while also noting in the context of the campaign that this has been a significant theme in the attacks on him. JamesMLane t c 19:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Romney's evolution or the pejorative term flip flopping is as a result of the political mood of both the Republican Party and the nation as a whole. What sells in a northeastern state like Massachusetts does not sell in Iowa nor should it and solutions for 6 million people in Mass will be vastly different than solution for 300 million people spread across an entire contient. Manofmyth (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This being said he does has a plastic quality to him that may turn off voters in November. Manofmyth (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Would a fuller treatment of this part of R's public image fit well into that particular subarticle?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

File:WMittRomney.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:WMittRomney.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Age

Romney is sixty-four years old? How is this possible, he hardly looks a day over fourty in his images. I thought Romney to be in his early thirties. Has Romney ever received surgery or is it that he just doesn't look his age? Thank you. --Suffery (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The latter. And you're not looking at all the right images. If he was in his early thirties he'd be ineligible to run for president and we'd have to have a Mitt Romney age requirement conspiracy theories article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The picture is 4 years old (looks like it was taken during the last primary campaign). Reminds me of the 1988 bumper sticker that said, "He's Tanned, He's Rested, He's Ready: Nixon for President". He looks young enough, I just question whether the number one threat to national security under a Romney Presidency would be the annual Romney Family Football Game. How would you like to be his son Tagg the morning after tackling POTUS and sending him into cardiac failure. Will Mitt get Kevlar padding? Better yet, a decoy stand-in?--Canadiandy talk 21:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I was in Cambridge MA at the same time as Mitt Romney (his oldest son and our oldest son played together). Of course you will note that the info side box lists his birth "March 12, 1947 (age 64)" which I do not consider old at all. (Perhaps it is that he doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink, and he doesn't chase wild women.) What do you think? . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Evolution

The article says: "Romney's position or choice of emphasis on certain social issues, including abortion,[101] some aspects of gay rights,[nb 12] some aspects of stem cell research,[nb 13] and some aspects of abstinence-only sex education,[nb 14] evolved into a more conservative stance during his time as governor." It would be useful to break this up into position change on the one hand, and change of emphasis on the other hand. The two things are quite different, and it would be preferable to not lump them together. It seems potentially very misleading to fill up a sentence about position changes with a bunch of issues that he did not actually change his position on. Position changes are generally much more consequential and noteworthy, but if we're going to address rhetorical changes then it ought to be done separately. There are lots of reasons why a politician might change his rhetoric, and it happens all the time; Sarkozy emphasized financial matters once the Greek debt crisis erupted, Japanese politicians started talking a lot about nuclear safety after the tsunami, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Which do you see as changes in emphasis, and which do you see as changes in position? The overarching theme in reliable sources seems to be his shift rightward as he's moved from governor of Massachusetts to a contender for the Republican presidential nomination. If hairsplitting about positions vs. emphasis obscures that theme, then we're not doing a good job representing our sources. IncidΠentally, the list is incomplete; on climate change, Romney has rather famously moved from "I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that" to "we don’t know what’s causing climate change", after Rush Limbaugh et al. got on his case (e.g. WSJ, Politico, Washington Post, etc). MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not require us to speak of position changes and rhetorical changes in the aggregate without distinguishing between those two things. That is the point I was making. I certainly agree that Romney has changed a lot over the years, but that statement by itself would be completely useless to Wikipedia readers (e.g. given that Romney used to be two feet tall, bald, and toothless). I would like to give this article's primary editor an opportunity to disentangle position change from rhetorical change, before commenting on exactly how it should be done (which I have not formed a definite position about yet). I'm sorry that you think it's "hairsplitting" to distinguish between a position change that potentially indicates unreliability, versus a rhetorical change that may merely signify that the audience or circumstances called for a different presentation. If we have a section on political positions, it should be possible to describe which positions have changed, and how many have changed, without rendering that description completely ambiguous and misleading. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'Notes' behind these items explain what the shift was and allow the reader to judge the nature and significance of them. And I don't think the gap between the two is as wide as you think, since the bully pulpit is a prime aspect of any executive's power and changes in how the bully pulpit is used are quite important. This is especially true regarding human rights areas, where whether a prominent political leader sets a tone of tolerance and acceptance or sets a tone of disinterest or resentment can often have as much effect as any explicit position on a law being passed. So I'm not in favor of changing any of these. Nor am I in favor of taking out the "Romney has been consistent in many of his political positions.<!-- Stipulated. If you enumerate all the positions that Romney has ever taken on any issue, most of them have not changed. -->" preface, which I came up with to placate your previous concerns and which MastCell has now removed. I'm in favor of letting sleeping dogs lie and keeping the worms in the can. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Does the sentence about consistency (which I removed) reflect an actual emphasis of reliable sources? Or is it something to which you acquiesced to satisfy the demands of a single tenacious Wikipedia editor? MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This article has recently been a fairly civil place, rather than a battleground full of attacks. Sometimes my arguments prevail, sometimes they don't, but at least everyone seems to have been getting a decent hearing. I deny your assertions that I am a "demanding" and "tenacious" "hairsplitter", and I don't appreciate being followed from one article to the next with groundless accusations. It should be possible to disagree intelligently without making this article into a toxic battleground. We already have plenty of those. If I'm so tenacious and demanding, then wouldn't I have reverted your removal of the sentence in question; wouldn't I at least have already objected to that removal here at the talk page? Please drop the attacks or go somewhere else. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've shared the space with FL/AYW on articles like this for many years. He does tend to be tenacious and some of his arguments quickly reach reductio ad absurdum (see the two-year-old Romney bit above) but we usually reach compromises. In this case the 'stipulation' bit was my own invention, and while it was introduced to help settle down this section of the article, it's also something I strongly believe. Look at any pol who's hammered for being a flip-flopper – take John Kerry for example - and you'll find most of their positions haven't changed, or only change due to obvious external events, or change due to the complexity of politics (Kerry's infamous "I was for it before I was against it" explanation was perfectly legitimate if you know how the Senate works). So I think that stating "X has been consistent in many of his political positions" is worthwhile. I realize though that by only being in Romney's article, it opens up the notion of bias. But I can't help what all the others are like. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If your sentence goes back in, it ought to be with a footnote to some reliable source that says substantially what's in the sentence. As for being tenacious, well, it usually takes two, and I often have not been the prevailing party (and I thought my parenthetical analogy above about Romney was both amusing and pertinent). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) WTR, let's take stem cell research as an example. I started this talk page section by quoting a sentence from this article saying that he either changed his position or changed his choice of emphasis on that issue. You're objecting to saying which? I'm suggesting that we very briefly add information to this article, not take any out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The [nb 13] Note in this article says "During his 2002 campaign, Romney expressed broad support for embryonic stem cell research, and said he would lobby President Bush (who the year before had banned most federal funding for such research) to support it. In early 2005, Romney announced his position on therapeutic cloning for the first time, saying he was against it – and vetoing a funding bill for stem cell research because it allowed it – but still in favor of research on unused embryos from fertility treatments. In early 2007, Romney said he was now against expanded federal funding for such excess embryo research (but still thought private funding for such research was ethical, to the dismay of some conservative Republicans).[220]" So the explanation is there for readers who want the specifics about this particular matter. I don't want to drag all that detail into the main text because then the forest is lost for the trees. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to move any of that detail into the main text. I'm merely suggesting that the main text should say whether this was a change of emphasis, or was it a change of position. That's all. If there is no opposition to doing so, then I'll do it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. This may be of interest, regarding the sentence that MastCell removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, as far as I can tell, no one has objected to saying in this article whether the stem cell thing was a change of emphasis, or was a change of position. So, I'll draft up some brief language and present it here. I'd rather walk into a buzzsaw than put this straight into the article. If this approach works out for this issue, then maybe we can do it for the others. It won't take up much more space (if any at all), and readers would find it useful and less confusing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that whether people object will depend on what sources have to say, and whether the proposed text reflects them. Glancing at NPR and the New York Times, they seem depict this as a change of position ("In the past, Romney has supported limited government funding for stem-cell research... [In 2007] he came out strongly against any expansion of stem-cell research during Friday's speech at the pro-life convention.") MastCell ^Talk 06:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't closely examined the sources yet, so I have no opinion yet. The point is that there's no objection to removing the ambiguity in this Wikipedia article if that can easily be done. I'll post a draft tomorrow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Revolution

Okay, as promised, I have a draft to start disambiguating Romney's changes of emphasis from his changes of position. This Wikipedia article currently says:

Romney's position or choice of emphasis on certain social issues, including abortion,[101] some aspects of gay rights,[nb 12] some aspects of stem cell research,[nb 13] and some aspects of abstinence-only sex education,[nb 14] evolved into a more conservative stance during his time as governor.

As mentioned above, I'm not going to try to disambiguate this whole sentence (and whatever other similar language exists in this Wikipedia article) from the get-go. Better to go slow. So, the following suggestion only covers abortion and stem cells, and I think it's pretty clear that he changed more than emphasis on both issues: he changed his actual position. I suggest the following:

During his time as governor, Romney's position on abortion changed to a more conservative stance, in conjunction with a similar change of position on stem cell research.[101] [nb 13] Also during that time, his position or choice of emphasis on some aspects of gay rights,[nb 12] and some aspects of abstinence-only sex education,[nb 14] evolved in a more conservative direction.

According to a New York Times article, "Mr. Romney has freely admitted that he was once pro-choice but said that he changed his mind on the issue after a meeting in November 2004 with a Harvard stem cell scientist that he had during the state’s debate over whether to allow the cloning of embryos for purposes of embryonic stem cell research." So, the change on these two issues was concerted. According to a Boston Globe article on 6/14/02, Romney said he would try to “budge” President George W. Bush from the latter’s position on stem cell research. After the concerted event in 2004, a Boston Globe article on 2/1/07 reported Romney as saying that he was "in a very similar place" to Bush on the matter. As you can see from my draft above, I haven't added any footnotes, because I'm not sure it's necessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I continue to believe this is a distinction without much of a difference, but I'm okay with your revision. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Romney explanation on moving to more conservative positions makes sense to me. I, too, feel your edit is valuable. Mitt Romney will continue to speak for himself in the coming months. . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. Neither of you wasted your time, IMHO.

"More cases"

This article says, "Bain was among the private equity firms that took the most such fees (with more cases happening as Romney was leaving the firm)."

This parenthetical is confusing. Does "more cases" mean "more cases than occurred before he decided to leave the firm"? Is the implication supposed to be that he was trying to grab as much money as be could on the way out the door? The source says: "One transaction, involving the medical diagnostics company Dade Behring, took place in 1999 as Romney was leaving the firm." So apparently there was only one such case while he was leaving, not "more cases".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify the wording and I added a cite. There are at least four Bain Capital investments where this applies: Ampad, Stage Stores, Dade Behring, and KB Toys. The parenthetical is intended to indicate that the reputation that Bain Capital gained during this time cannot all be laid to Romney. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

However, today's NYT piece makes it clear that Dade Behring was under his watch, so I've added a brief description of that and removed the whole "more cases" parenthetical. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The net jobs created during his time at Bain might be an interesting stat. However, per Anderson Cooper, "putting a number on jobs created is downright impossible".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now pointed that out in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

New hatnote

The new hatnote says: "This article is about the man and his life in general. For details and news related to his ongoing 2012 presidential campaign, see Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012." This seems unnecessary, because there's already a nav box near the top of this article. Also, this hatnote is wordy. Anyway, if people want "news" they should go to wikinews or CNN or somewhere like that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Experiences from 1965 to 1975

Is the title of this section intended to be an homage to Jimi Hendrix? I thought not. Please fix. 75.60.17.31 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to, but I don't have numbers. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If it was good enough for Hendrix....Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think the Mittster ever resonated with "If 6 Was 9" ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with how it is, but also would have no problem with "University, French mission, and fatherhood: 1965-1975". The thing that holds this section together (and excludes other stuff) is that it all occurred during that decade, so the "1965-1975" is key. BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if Romney's seen the movie Point Break which featured "If 6 Was 9" (it was a popular movie that I've seen a few times to appease my inner surfer/robber).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Crash

This has been edited today: "The fault for the accident was attributed to the driver of the other vehicle, based solely on the statements of passengers in Romney's car." Is there any source that supports the stuff after the comma?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the the referenced newspaper stories, first published in the boston globe, and reprinted, verbatum in the ny times. it is all based of a statement the boston globe reporter got from a passenger in romney's car 30 years after the fact. no police reports, no insurance forms, zip. romney was driving an overloaded car, on an unfamilar road with the setting sun his face, that can be verified from the newspaper acticle and the picture of the cars after the wreck (note the sun vissors down in romney's car). go to google road view and find the french post office mentioned in the story and you find that the road is two lanes going south and only one lane north at that point. according to wikipedea rule, that is not allowable because it is independant research, but one can say unarguably that the version of the accident, that a local driver, with the sun at his back, drifted over not one but two lanes to cause the head-on collision, is based solely on the statement, not under oath, by another member of romney's mission, in the car that day. that is right there in the newspaper story, with no other corroberation. i think such a flimsy bases is relevent. romney has always said he doesn't remember anything. that's a politician for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OO7-AAA (talk • contribs) 23:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the cited source, a Mercedes was passing a truck, missed a curve, and suddenly swerved into the opposite lane and hit the Citroën DS Romney was driving in a head-on collision. Because you have discussed none of this, quoted nothing, and not cited any new source, I have to revert your edit. If you want to use this talk page to address what the cited source says, or what other additional sources say, please feel free. We're all glad to listen.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The reversions of OO7-AAA are proper. While there may be no police report or insurance claims still extant, all three survivors offer similar stories, all the secondary indications in the BG article (belief that the other driver might have been inebriated, Mormon church thought about suing the other driver, memories of a possible criminal case and affidavits against the other driver, memories of a settlement from the other driver) point the same way, and other newspaper sources (such as the NYT article that is also used as a cite) always express the same conclusion. There's no reason to believe there was some grand conspiracy to cover up the truth that even the son of the person killed would participate in. OO7-AAA seems mainly motivated by a personal animus against Romney and/or all politicians. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

the statement that "The fault for the accident was attributed to the driver of the other vehicle" is not justified by the cited sources. that statement gives the impression that "fault" was determined by some legal process, when in fact it is the subjective opinion of three person, who were in the accident. it should be deleted, or clarified as to who did the "attributing". OO7-AAA (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the cited New York Times article: "Mr. Romney, who was not at fault in the accident, was knocked out...." This is a statement of fact by a reliable source, without any hedging or equivocation. So, there's no need for us to hedge or equivocate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

what does that have to do with it? that does not mean the other driver was at fault! romney was not prosecuted by the french and found guity of a crime, so in a sense you can say "he was not at fault" and there is no proof the other driver was either, happens all the time in car accidents. what caused the accident?, the weather conditions, the unexpected sunlight in romney's face. neither was in a legal sense, at "fault", since a court never found either of them guilty of a crime. OO7-AAA (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the article to more closely track the cited NYT article. This doesn't seem like much of a difference to me, but whatever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This very recent Reuters story, which includes some new reporting from Romney's time in France, says, "Witnesses at the time said the other driver, a priest who had been drinking, had just passed another car and was undeniably at fault." However it's not clear what exactly the basis of this is (old newspaper reports? new interviews? or just stating general belief?). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

they are probably just repeating the distorted story in the boston globe and distorting it even more. the phrase in the globe story "many of the mormons familiar with accident say they believe the priest was inebriated at the time of the crash, but that assertion could not be confirmed" notice these peopled are not named, or whether they were at the crash site, i.e. witnesses, and statements by romney "...suddenly there was a car in my lane.." and "MY UNDERSTANDING" (i.e. what he says someone else told him) "he had been passing a truck" and a passsanger in romeny's car, mrs faral's statement "..a car was coming from in front, and we didn't have time to realize it" (note neither mentions what lane romeny was in, the right hand lane where he was supposed to be or the middle lane which starts right in front of the post office as the road leaves town and is south bond only at that point, which would explain everything) gets combined and morphed into "witnesses at the time said the other driver, a priest who had been drinking, had just passed another car (not a truck by now) and was undeniably at fault." OO7-AAA (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that expresses doubt in the reported version? If not it looks like original research and/or synthesis to me.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

that the accident took place in front of the post office is mention in the bg story, could i get a picture of the mentioned intersection using google map, or take one myself and insert it in the article next to where it talks about the accident, and let people draw their own conclusions? OO7-AAA (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems fairly usless since as you stated above, no source discusses lane location. Any sort of commentary about 'if he was here in this lane it was his fault' would go back to the links above regarding original research. In fact even worse, it could be inaccurate. The accident took place over 40 years ago. Could we source that the lane configuration is the same today as it was in 1968?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that contradicts the source in the article? If not, this discussion is moot. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) This Wikipedia article has now been edited to say: "Neither Romney nor the French police have any records of criminal charges being filed conserning [sic] the accident." This implies that no charges were filed, and omits that police records are routinely destroyed after 10 years. The source says: "At the local police station in Bazas, officials said they do not have any records because they routinely destroy all documents after 10 years." I've just rewritten this new sentence, and moved it to the Note: "The French police say that they have no records of the incident because such records are routinely destroyed after 10 years."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

yes they talk about lanes. mittens says "suddenly there was a car in my lane". farral says "it crossed the road, it missed it's turn", both statements imply, they thought they were in a northbound lane, and the other driver was at fault, but there is no record of any legal decision, criminal or civil, on the matter. if they were in the middle, southbound, lane (designed so that southbound drivers can make a left turn at the post office, to go into the village without holding up traffic) then romney was at fault. they were driving along, chatting a away, into the setting sun on a two lane road, then they start to leave the village and the road turns in to three lanes at the post office when WHAM, a head on collision. they are quickly taken to a hospital and the cars are towed to a garage. maybe to this day that think they were in the right, but there is no proof of that. OO7-AAA (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Pre-career bio section

Surfed to Hillary Clinton and the comparable section is "early life and education"--which, coz it seemed apropos, I shamelessly copied for MItt. (Fwiw clinton's isn't a feature article but mccain's is; there a comparable section's fashioned "early life and military career." Kerry's not even a good article but has one section labeled "early years (1943–1966)" (with subsections "childhood" and "yale univ.") and another section labeled "military svc (1966–1970)" (with five[!] subsections: hmm, perhaps these many subsections @ kerry are too choppy/short.) Gore's a good article; it has "early life," "marriage and fam," and "harvard, nam, journalism, and vanderbilt (1965–1976)" (with this last section having subs "harvard," "military svc," and "vanderbilt and journalism.") Bama's--a feat. article--has "early life and career" and W's has "childhood to mid-life.") --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't really compare to articles of presidents since those have to compress all the pre-presidential material. I agree that "Early life and education" is fairly standard for cases where the education happened right after childhood, but there are different variations in cases where the education happened later in life or was interrupted by military or some other kind of service. We'll see what others say to your changes. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstname section

His firstname is "Mitt Romney" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.167.207 (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Um and the mystery of his hair--is revealed here!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Entrepreneur?

The lead asserts that Romney is an entrepreneur. Do we have any reliable sources that identify Romney as an entrepreneur? I know that's how his campaign describes him, but that's hardly a reliable source. And I found this 2007 article in an RS (Inc magazine) that challenges that claim. I'll mark it as dubious for now, and if no one can find an RS to support this, then we need to change it to something like business manager. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

For a long time the first sentence said "businessman", so I've changed it back to that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Like Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete some details which exist solely to paint a good picture (advertising)?

Under "1994 U.S. senatorial campaign" the text

"In the November general election, despite a disastrous showing for Democrats overall, Kennedy won the election with 58 percent of the vote to Romney's 41 percent,[35] the smallest margin in Kennedy's eight re-election campaigns for the Senate."

should be changed to

"In the November general election, which didn't go well for Democrats overall, Kennedy won the election with 58 percent of the vote to Romney's 41 percent. [35]"

To me, it's perfectly clear that this text is not informational but routes in someone who wants to advertise Mitt Romney. While this, of course, in general may not be wrong, one has to stay objective and fair. If you mention outside reasons/statistics to apologize for bad performance you would also have to mention outside reasons/disclaimers when he performed well. This, for one, is not done in the article and secondly, would be impractical to do at all.

I leave it to the more versed authors to change the text. In connection with the above remarks, truth is that the article is on several ocassions written like an advertisement. This should be adressed.

And by the way, I personally see Mitt Romney favourable, but I see no reason why one should try to convince others with dirty tricks rather than objective information.

Greets, T.X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.218.89.82 (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There are three things that can be said about Romney's 1994 result:

• He lost to Kennedy by 17 points.
• That was bad compared to how other Republican candidates did that year.
• That was good compared to how other Republican opponents had done against Kennedy in the past.

All three of these aspects are worth mentioning, and I do not see how including all of them amounts to 'advertising'. Readers can evaluate all three statements and decide for themselves whether Romney did well or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I did misread, since one info is positive and the other negative for his voting result - I had two 'positives' in my mind, so that indeed does not amount to 'advertising'. Sorry for that claim. As for the trivia regarding the 'smallest margin in 8 campaigns' that is a detail I do not find worth mentioning (there are dozens of statistical trivia one could mention) although it is a nice piece of knowledge no one cares or should care about. I don't have any real objections with that. T.X. 79.218.120.84 (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Religious details

WP frowns on needlessly pointing out too early--or at all, too lengthily--a subject's ethnicy or religion but in Mitt's case the latter, due the Boston-area ministry, forms an unavoidable part of his biography so I've consolidated this with various items concerning his religio-ethnic background into a section placed after business career and before the various public service endeavors.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC) [Note: Now slightly copy-edited the above.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)]

I strongly disagree with your change. This article is best served by a chronological treatment, which treats his life in narrative sequence, which is how all real biographies work and how peoples' lives actually work. It's also how this article was organized during the GA review process. I have undone your change, and I have also moved the material on Romney's family origins up to the early life section where it logically belongs and almost always is for other articles of this type. The only separate section necessary is something that deals with the public image regarding his religion with respect to electoral politics, and I'm not even convinced that section is necessary, since most of what it covers could be folded into the 2008 presidential campaign section. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I restored coverage given to the political family and reference to laity. Also I've moved up the discussion of Romney's stance with regard his political beliefs to the US Senate run [diff] for better chronology, positioning coverage of his ethnic and religious heritages after mention of George's LDS "expat" background in Mexico [diff].

Wasted Time R, If the two of us continue to "stongly disagree," and no-one else chimes in, would it be acceptable for us to seek a third-party opinion by listing the conflict at WP:3O?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your folding of the 'Faith in America' material into the chronology, but it's much better in the 2008 race, the election where it became most prominent and most studied, so I moved it there. I agree with your reordering of the 'Youth and heritage' material, it's better than what I did. However I disagree with your reordering of the 'bishop' material within the business career section, it was out of chrono and the section's wrap-up should focus on the effects of his business career, so I put it back where it was. I'm not crazy about adding 'bishopcy' to the section title but we'll see how it goes.

I think we can work things out between ourselves on this. If others chime in, that's fine, but FL/AYW is on one of his periodic retirements and other editors typically disappear when a presidential candidacy falters and fades. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My reason for segregating the lay pastorship material by pushing it toward the end are that I hoped to make it easier for a person looking for an authoritative statement on this aspect of Mitt's biography to be able to find it quickly.

Sorta in connection (vaguely, lol) to Mitt's current fade, as you say: surfing about looking at other candidates' religious affiliations, fwiw, I see that--

1. Newt's "'Mainline' to Baptist--to Catholic" journey is in a religion subsection of a personal life section
2. Herman's lay ministry is in a religious life section
3. Sen. Joe Lieberman (Ind., Conn.)'s observant status within his minority religion [some analogy there, fwiw...] and references to that background are in a personal life section; and
4. Huck's non-lay pastorship is in a pastoral career section. Let's see, who else is there?

• Michele's religious info is in "Personal life: Religion"
• Sarah's is in "Personal life"
• RickS's is in "Personal life"
• Jon's is in "Personal life: Religious views"
• Ron's is in "Personal life"
• RickP's is in "Governor of Texas: Religion" [of all places...lol].

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Whups,IAC Amer. Heritage (I think it is...) sez it was bishopry.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Personal life" and "Religious life" type sections are inferior organizations based around the idea that people lead compartmentalized lives. Well, people usually don't, and in Romney's case he certainly doesn't. Romney's family, religious, business, and political lives are all intertwined and changes in one area have often precipitated changes in other areas. As for readers finding information in the article, in real biographies there are indexes, but here a simple text search for "Mormon" will find all the places religion is discussed. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As it now stands the section covers part of "Romney in the private sector" but not all; his roles in for-profit business and the nonprofit church are combined, but the other nonprofit (the Olympics) has a separate section. It might be more consistent to put all these subjects in one section with three subsections. I do agree with Wasted about moving the material on Romney's family origins up to the early life section. I also agree with 72Dino's change of "pastorship" to "leadership" in the heading. Romney's role in the church encompassed broader duties than what's traditionally thought of as a pastor, so the more inclusive term "leadership" is more accurate. JamesMLane t c 09:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also okay with "leadership". As for an umbrella "Romney in the private sector" section, I get what you're saying, but I don't think that his LDS Church activity is comparable in weight to either his BCG/B&C/BC career or his time as head of the Salt Lake Olympics. Those were both full-time jobs while the church leadership is by intent something one does on the side. Furthermore the top level of the Table of Contents shouldn't 'collapse' his non-political career, since after all he spent about 26 years doing that versus about 10 years as a politician. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept "comparable in weight" as the standard for section headings. Surely his business character is more notable than his comparatively brief one-shot stint with the Olympics, but that's no reason not to have a separate heading for the Olympics. Similarly, the current "Awards and honors" is a reasonable choice for a section heading, even though it's less important than his church leadership. As for the T/C, why does "top level" matter? Do some readers see only top-level headings? A T/C with subheadings for business career, church leadership, and the Olympics would be fine for readers looking for his entire nonpolitical career or for a specific aspect of it. JamesMLane t c 16:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just having one top-level heading for "Private sector" gives the misleading impression that Romney has been a politician most of his adult life, which is not the case. Also, the Olympics aren't really in the private sector ... they're sort of unique unto themselves, and while 'brief' to your perspective are in fact are very, very visible. Being CEO of a successful turnaround of a troubled Olympics Games is definitely worthy of a top-level section, not a second level. (I believe there are some abbreviated print forms of WP that only extract top-level section headings? ... not sure, I could be wrong). I'm happy to get rid of "Awards and honors" or merge it into Notes in the narrative (some editors play importance on honorary degrees so I was trying to accommodate that). Wasted Time R (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I've never before heard the idea that the top-level headings, read in isolation, must form a sort of mini-article that's precisely aligned with each topic's importance. I thought the headings were just to help the reader find stuff.

The biggest problem with applying NPOV is importance. It's easier to state individual bits neutrally than it is to arrive at a "neutral" way of weighing them in the article. Your proposed criterion would add another layer of problem (and of bickering) to the organizational issues. I prefer to assume that our readers aren't idiots and that no one will take the T/C to reflect studied judgments about importance. If you fear that my suggested organization would mislead some readers about Romney's non-political career, then what would you think about top-level headings for "Business career", "Church leadership", and the Olympics? I just think that lumping those first two together looks strange. JamesMLane t c 05:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer this suggestion to the previous one. (Another problem with your previous one is that it forces the Olympics section before the 1994 campaign section, which is way out of chrono.) But actually, I don't think "church leadership" needs to be in a heading at all, and that's the way it was for a long time. It was Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden – whose interest in this article seems to solely revolve around Mormon-related matters – who wants this. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

When the Washington Post and Pew Research Center recently asked a random sample of more than 1,000 Americans what one word they associate with Romney, "Mormon" was cited more than three times as often as any other.---current AMER. SPECTATOR

Well, yes, the subject's church service is eminently notable and deserves to be accounted for in the header in some fashion to enable someone looking for an authoritatively [Edited: Wikipedia's] summarized statement about it. However, the trade of of strict chronological sequencing is the strange pairing of business career/church service. One fix would be to enter the timeframe (1975–c. 1994) into this header and then add the word "including" before "local church service. Another perhaps-acceptable option is described in the bulleted sentence below (although I'm sure the newly created subsections' makeup/header-wordings could benefit from being tweaked).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Now, reference to R's stake presidency and bishopry svc has tentatively been moved to its own subhead [diff], since it seemed not to merit equal billing w/in the same header as subject's business career.==Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't see "Local church leadership; business timeframe overlap with budding public service career" as a viable section header – it's too long and too meta – so I went with the second JamesMLane suggestion instead. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree - w the less strictly chronological/more topical arrangement here: well done, Wasted Time R! (As you know, you'd previously moved the LDS lay leadership (viz., "bishoprial," lol, info) back up to where you'd had it, before your well-worded 2-pgrf wrap-up about Romney's transition to the public arena and his becoming an entirely passive investor [diff], with an edit summary of restore bishop material to chrono place, letting end of section wrap up most important material.) This summation and pointer to the upcoming sections glommed pretty awkwardly onto the bishoprial material, due to the fact that the nature of such volunteer work is so distinct from that of the other consulting and venture capital work of the section; and I think (although I'm not going to bother to look up examples) that most other "good article" class or above articles, even those written in a very chronological manner, tend to split very notable volunteer, etc., work out into its own treatment when it doesn't mesh perfectly with the subject's main line of endeavor.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, fwiw, now that I've surfed the question some, the results are somewhat mixt: Non-chrono: e/g Bill Gates#Philantrhopy, gd. art. Forest Whitaker#Activism. Chrono (not a "gd. art." but still): Jimmy Carter#Farming and prayer, Jimmy Carter#Faith, family, and community (...).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Romney's bishop and stake president work did actually mesh with his business career in the sense that he used business expertise in the church role, he balanced time and travel between the two, and he stepped down from the church roles when he first went into politics. But I'm good with "Local church leadership" being a separate section now, since it's still in the general chronological flow and since I was able to expand it a bit in terms of text and sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Net worth should be on the personal info section at the side

67.208.241.81 (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't, that field was removed from the {{Infobox officeholder}} template. And a good thing too, as definitional problems abound. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

updating description

The first line of his page should describe him as: American businessman, Olympic organizer, author, and politician. This is consistent with how other people’s profiles who have written books and organized the Olympic games are described.--Matadorpoet (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"Olympic organizer" is really more of a position than an occupation, one that has a lot of overlap with both businesspersons and politicians. And Romney hasn't been an author by profession either – his two books have been meant to capitalize on one high-profile success and pave the way for another. But I did discover that the bottom of the article was missing a succession template for Winter Olympics organizers and two categories related to the Olympics, so I added those. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect other people on Wikipedia that have served as a CEO of a Olympic Committee have it mentioned as the first line in their description because thats how they are best known. Mitt's role in handling the 2002 Winter Olympics was featured heavily and made him a public figure. This was a full time job and he spend years of his life doing it. Further it does not fall into the categories of either "businessman" or "politician" since the Olympics are a non-profit organization.Matadorpoet (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the entries so far in the new Category:Presidents of Organising Committees for the Olympic Games, some have it in the first sentence, some later in the first paragraph, some elsewhere in the lead. In part it depends upon how many other well-known things the person has done. The most famous of the bunch, Sebastian Coe, doesn't mention it until the second paragraph of the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Olympics description

His father died in 1995 and his mother in 1998, and Romney felt restless as the decade neared a close; the goal of just making more money was losing its appeal to him. He had stepped down as Boston Stake president in order to run for the Senate, although he still taught Sunday School and had a limited role in trying to ease tensions between the church and local residents during the long and somewhat controversial approval and construction process for a Mormon temple in Belmont. Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998; Romney described watching her fail a series of neurological tests as the worst day of his life. After two years of severe difficulties with the disease, she found in Park City, Utah (where the couple had built a vacation home) a mixture of mainstream, alternative, and equestrian therapies that gave her a lifestyle mostly without limitations. When the offer came for Romney to take over the troubled 2002 Olympic Winter Games, to be held in Salt Lake City in Utah, she urged him to take it, and eager for a new challenge, he did.

This seems like it needs some clean up -- most of this has little to do with the Olympics. The sections about Ann Romney's multiple sclerosis, his parents' deaths, and the Mormon temple are mostly irrelevant to his decision to plan the Olympics in Salt Lake City. This is too much a personal narrative. Furthermore, this seems like it needs some WP:NPOV clean up. Are there any objections to this? PatrickNiedzielski (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is organized chronologically, with the section headers referring to the major thing that happened during a given period, but not necessarily the only thing. In this case, the "personal narrative" is key, because Romney's family, religious, and professional lives all became intertwined here, with events and challenges and opportunities in one area affecting decisions in other areas. So yes I object to "cleaning" it. Everything in here is true and well-sourced and important to Romney's biography. In fact it would be a POV violation to take this out, because in here is the explanation for why Romney went to Utah, and in here is the sequence of events that led to the residency requirement controversy when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts after coming back from Utah in 2002. Of course we can always discuss wording; what specifically do you object to? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead section issues

The lead section is SO much better than Gingrich's was when I first commented on it, it's no comparison. However, I think there are a couple of items in the lead that receive undue emphasis. I'd like to hear people's thoughts.

• The first two sentences of the second paragraph are about Romney's upbringing, which is not particularly notable. Romney's early life is already explained in detail in its own section and does not need to be summarized in the lead with priority over the more important stuff (Bain, Olympics, governorship, presidential campaigns).

• The last sentence of the lead reads, "Political observers and public opinion polls place him among the front-runners in the race." By my experience Wikipedia never includes front-runner status, let alone in lead sections, for at least two reasons. First, we could argue all day about who should be anointed front-runner status and who should not. Second, the polls and media observations are constantly shifting. There's just no way to keep up. As of today, for instance, the fact that Gingrich is leading in the polls isn't on his page (nor should it be).

Thoughts? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Two sentence about his upbringing at the beginning of the second paragraph seem appropriate to me. They note his notable parents, where he was raised, and that he served as missionary in France, which is considered notable by many. I think that's fine.
  • Totally agree on this front-runner point. By the way, Gingrich seem to already be imploding in the Bachmann/Perry/Cain style, taking a huge dive in the latest polling that I've seen. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about the upbringing stuff. As for "front-runner", I see your point, but it seems a shame to stop at identifying him merely as one candidate; a reader unversed in current U.S. politics wouldn't know that Romney is, at a minimum, in the top tier, compared to the likes of Santorum. We could probably find a source stating that, according to the FEC reports, Romney has raised more money than any other Republican candidate (to be updated, of course, if a future FEC report changes the ranking). That would be an objective fact; it would put the reader in the picture without getting into any of the ambiguity and changeability of poll results. Would that answer your objection? JamesMLane t c 02:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The two upbringing sentences should stay – being the son of a governor and spending two and a half years abroad as a missionary certainly seem unusual and notable to me. The "(née LaFount)" parenthetical however is a detail that could be removed. That Romney is "among the front-runners" in the race is definitely, objectively true and should also stay. Look at Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2012 presidential primaries; Romney is first or second in virtually every poll going back to 2009. No other candidate can say this; they all either decide not to run, or alternate between surges into the top tier and long stretches in the single digits. And there is WP precedent for this usage: throughout the long Hillary-Obama battle of 2007-2008, the leads for both articles had equivalent phrases conveying their status in the race. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue about Romney's frontrunner status is not so much whether it is true -- of course it is -- it's (a) whether it is important enough to merit inclusion in the lead paragraph, and (b) whether a similar sentence should be included in the lead paragraphs for Gingrich, Paul, Perry ... --Nstrauss (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference between Romney and all the others is that Romney has consistently been among the fron-runners; none of the others have. (And not just by polls but by other metrics as well, such as fundraising, pundit mentions, Intrade odds, etc.) I've now added 'consistently' to the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Education update: BYU valedictorian

There is no mention that Mitt was valedictorian of his class. The following line in the second paragh of his description should read: He received his undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University and was valedictorian of his graduating class. Also you might want to change the section that states University to Education to make that more clear. University as a header could mean many things such as teaching or administration. Matadorpoet (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He was not valedictorian, per his own statements. See Note 5 in the article:

^ Some sources incorrectly report that Romney graduated BYU as valedictorian. Romney himself has corrected this notion, saying that he was not. While he believes he did have the highest grade point average for his BYU years in the College of Humanities, he did not if his Stanford year was factored in, and he did not among the graduating class university-wide.[36]

As for "University" in the heading, that's to distinguish it from his time in high school and before. That particular section header has had about ten different versions so far, and nobody is fully happy with it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional Links and Information

http://www.facebook.com/mittromney can be added (I don't know how.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There are templates for this: {{Facebook|mittromney|Mitt Romney}}. But WP:ELNO says to avoid external links to social networking sites "except for a link to an official page of the article's subject", and the Facebook page is solely devoted to the current campaign. Thus the external link should go in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article if anyway. I've removed the existing MySpace link in this article for the same reason. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for instruction and insights. Added the Mitt Romney page in Facebook to the 2012 campaign article. (MySpace page was old and not for 2012.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)