Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008/Archive 1

message: Romney is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as Mormon). Many of his beliefs supporting marriage between a man and a woman and on the importance of the family in society fall in line with the Church's teachings on the family (See The Family: A Proclamation to the World).
A February 8, 2007 National Public Radio article highlights 6 Polls from national news agencies showing Romney's Mormon beliefs could be an issue in 2008.Faith Could Be Hurdle in Romney's White House Bid National Public Radio, February 8, 2007. Retrieved February 9, 2007.Mormon Candidate Braces for Religion as Issue The New York Times, February 8, 2007. Retrieved February 9, 2007. 
Romney may face fears that a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will take commandments from the president of the church who is regarded as a living prophet. On Fox News Romney said, "America has a political religion, which is to place the oath of office, an oath to abide by a nation of laws and a constitution, above all others. And there's no question that I make that my primary responsibility." Mike Otterson, the spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said, "The suggestion that a Mormon leader would dictate policy to a President Romney is absurd, I can't imagine any president that would allow that." During the 1960 presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy, similar allegations were made that a Roman Catholic would take orders from the Pope.
Some commentators have questioned Romney's judgment on the basis that anyone who subscribes to what they consider bizarre teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has faulty judgment.Mormon President? No Way Slate, December 20, 2006. Retrieved February 14, 2007.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has many vocal opponents, and rumors and legends exist about its supposedly outlandish  doctrinesThe Right Man New York Magazine, February 19, 2007. Retrieved Febuary 14, 2007 (see Criticism of Mormonism and Anti-Mormonism).  During a fundraiser in Utah, Romney addressed such concerns by saying: "My guess is as they get to know me better, there will be other faults that they find more troubling."Mitt's a hit with Utahns: Legislators, key GOP donors greet the adopted son Salt Lake Tribune Linda Fantin, February 21, 2007 The Mormon church banned polygamy in 1890, and those who practice polygamy are members of the fundimentalist Mormon church. There is no evidence that Romney is affiliated with that church or supports it.
 
==== Why America is Concerned with a Mormon President ====  
===== Is the Book of Mormon True? =====  
  
The Smithsonian Institution, a primary scientific institute of the U.S. Government, issues a standard response about the Book of Mormon regarding its scientific authenticity. They state "Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of this book." Smithsonian Institute Scientific View of the Book of Mormon, Retrieved February 14, 2007  
===== Are Mormons Racist? =====  
  
The first reference in Latter Day Saint writings describing dark skin as a curse and mark from God refers to Ancient Americans, rather than blacks. The Book of Mormon, dictated in the late 1820s, states the following about Lamanites, supposed ancestors of some tribes of Native Americans:  
   
And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (, emphasis added)  
 
Mormon Scriptures are full of statements that equate goodness and being of fair and white skin.Racism in the Book of Mormon, Retrieved March 2, 2007.The teachings of the Mormons about blacks are most specifically related to Blacks and the PriesthoodBlacks and the Priesthood in the Mormon Church, Retrieved March 2, 2007
:[I made this paragraph bold because it applies to a great many discussions on this page, not just the racism stuff] Why is the discussion page entertaining an argument about whether the LDS Church is a racist organization?  Is there any evidence whatsoever that Mitt Romney personally is racist?  If not then this discussion amounts to nothing more than attempted Mormon-bashing.  The internet is full of more appropriate places for such discussion, but here it merely needlessly clutters a discussion page that could otherwise be useful in the editing of the related article.
=====Homosexuality and Mormonism=====  
  
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers homosexuality or homosexual behavior to be sinful just as adultery and fornication are considered to be sinful. Homosexual desire when dwelled on is also viewed as sinful. The LDS church encourages its members not to "feed any such tempted desire."  
  
The LDS Church has actively opposed efforts to legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions. LDS doctrine holds that heterosexual marriage is one of many requirements for entry into the "highest degree of glory" of the Celestial Kingdom, the highest of the three heavens mentioned by Paul in the New Testament. Marriage between a man and a woman is not only required but is considered an essential part in the so named heaven being that family(nuclear family) is believed to be the fundamental unit of society in this life and in heaven.  
  
The church believes homosexuality to be a problem which is destructive to families and to individuals. Members who experience these "problems" are counseled to receive guidance and help from their family, bishop, or presiding authority. It is also considered as serious as adultery and fornication because Mormons believe all three are difficult to give up, undermine the family, and are sins of which one must repent.  
  
In order to give a more clear view on the LDS view of same-sex marriage; the current church president(Gordon B. Hinckley) said in a 2004 interview with Larry King the following...  
  
"Well, we're not anti-gay. We are pro-family. Let me put it that way.  
  
And we love these people and try to work with them and help them. We know they have a problem. We want to help them solve that problem." (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/26/lkl.01.html)
Soteriology 22:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious beliefs 

message: ===== Is the Book of Mormon True? =====  
  
The Smithsonian Institution, a primary scientific institute of the U.S. Government, issues a standard response about the Book of Mormon regarding its scientific authenticity. They state "Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of this book." Smithsonian Institute Scientific View of the Book of Mormon, Retrieved February 14, 2007  
===== Are Mormons Racist? =====  
  
The first reference in Latter Day Saint writings describing dark skin as a curse and mark from God refers to Ancient Americans, rather than blacks. The Book of Mormon, dictated in the late 1820s, states the following about Lamanites, supposed ancestors of some tribes of Native Americans:  
   
And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (, emphasis added)  
 
Mormon Scriptures are full of statements that equate goodness and being of fair and white skin.Racism in the Book of Mormon, Retrieved March 2, 2007.The teachings of the Mormons about blacks are most specifically related to Blacks and the PriesthoodBlacks and the Priesthood in the Mormon Church, Retrieved March 2, 2007
:[I made this paragraph bold because it applies to a great many discussions on this page, not just the racism stuff] Why is the discussion page entertaining an argument about whether the LDS Church is a racist organization?  Is there any evidence whatsoever that Mitt Romney personally is racist?  If not then this discussion amounts to nothing more than attempted Mormon-bashing.  The internet is full of more appropriate places for such discussion, but here it merely needlessly clutters a discussion page that could otherwise be useful in the editing of the related article.
=====Homosexuality and Mormonism=====  
  
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers homosexuality or homosexual behavior to be sinful just as adultery and fornication are considered to be sinful. Homosexual desire when dwelled on is also viewed as sinful. The LDS church encourages its members not to "feed any such tempted desire."  
  
The LDS Church has actively opposed efforts to legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions. LDS doctrine holds that heterosexual marriage is one of many requirements for entry into the "highest degree of glory" of the Celestial Kingdom, the highest of the three heavens mentioned by Paul in the New Testament. Marriage between a man and a woman is not only required but is considered an essential part in the so named heaven being that family(nuclear family) is believed to be the fundamental unit of society in this life and in heaven.  
  
The church believes homosexuality to be a problem which is destructive to families and to individuals. Members who experience these "problems" are counseled to receive guidance and help from their family, bishop, or presiding authority. It is also considered as serious as adultery and fornication because Mormons believe all three are difficult to give up, undermine the family, and are sins of which one must repent.  
  
In order to give a more clear view on the LDS view of same-sex marriage; the current church president(Gordon B. Hinckley) said in a 2004 interview with Larry King the following...  
  
"Well, we're not anti-gay. We are pro-family. Let me put it that way.  
  
And we love these people and try to work with them and help them. We know they have a problem. We want to help them solve that problem." (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/26/lkl.01.html)
Soteriology 22:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why America is Concerned with a Mormon President 

message: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers homosexuality or homosexual behavior to be sinful just as adultery and fornication are considered to be sinful. Homosexual desire when dwelled on is also viewed as sinful. The LDS church encourages its members not to "feed any such tempted desire."  
  
The LDS Church has actively opposed efforts to legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions. LDS doctrine holds that heterosexual marriage is one of many requirements for entry into the "highest degree of glory" of the Celestial Kingdom, the highest of the three heavens mentioned by Paul in the New Testament. Marriage between a man and a woman is not only required but is considered an essential part in the so named heaven being that family(nuclear family) is believed to be the fundamental unit of society in this life and in heaven.  
  
The church believes homosexuality to be a problem which is destructive to families and to individuals. Members who experience these "problems" are counseled to receive guidance and help from their family, bishop, or presiding authority. It is also considered as serious as adultery and fornication because Mormons believe all three are difficult to give up, undermine the family, and are sins of which one must repent.  
  
In order to give a more clear view on the LDS view of same-sex marriage; the current church president(Gordon B. Hinckley) said in a 2004 interview with Larry King the following...  
  
"Well, we're not anti-gay. We are pro-family. Let me put it that way.  
  
And we love these people and try to work with them and help them. We know they have a problem. We want to help them solve that problem." (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/26/lkl.01.html)
Soteriology 22:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality and Mormonism

message: A discussion can be found for establishing the section at Talk:Mitt Romney#This page lacks personal political beliefs. 
The conclusion was that it will save a lot of future angst and edit wars to name the section Political positions. 
Here are several reasons for returning to that name, from the recently re-named "Political Platform"
* Romney has been developing his publicly stated views since before the 1994 Massachusetts campaign for U.S. Senator. 
* His views have changed over time, and the context of those changing views is an important part of his biography, life, political career, and for making a judgment about his decisions, chracter and his current political campaign--all of which will be of interest during the current campaign for president.
* The term "Campaign platform" in many ways narrows the topic to one devoid of personal history, political context and policy development, or background, and implies silence about those topics for which he has (or has had)  views, but which are not espoused as part of the campaign.
* A reason for not naming it "Personal beliefs" is that this a less than public category, and the difference between Romney's personal beliefs and his political views the likely subject of poor documention, speculative sourcing, and future edit wars.
 
For these reasons, I am returning the section name to the original name, Political positions.
: -- Yellowdesk 04:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  HOW RUDE!  Just kidding :)!  I actually didn't like the name I switched it to whenever I switched it.  Your points are very correct and I agree.  Thanks, Chupper 05:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political positions section 

message: * Such web pages can be easily found via Google
* Generally any link of this nature fails to measure up to the policies described in:
** Wikipedia:External links, 
** Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight. 
* There will be somewhere between 100 and 10,000 "X for Romney" web pages before this campaign is over.
For these reasons, I've reverted  this edit by  Cpbronco.  
::-- Yellowdesk 04:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to "X for Romney" fan sites and web pages 

message: Tom Tellefsen is a Mitt Romney support and invited guest to first fund-raiser. Of course he is going to make glowing comments about the candidate. This is Wikipedia, not a press release. 
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/08/mitt_the_money_man.html 
Soteriology 04:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tom Tellefsen comment removal

message: I've removed the line about people finding the Ford museum controversial because of Henry Ford's alleged anti-semitism.  It's irrelevant to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney.  This information is well covered in the Henry Ford article.
Powerlad 02:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm forced to agree with Powerlad.  The first thing that went through my mind when reading the lead paragraph was "Am I reading the right article????"  It really needs to be removed.  If someone has an EXTREME desire to leave it in, put it lower in the article.  It certainly doesn't summarize any topics in the rest of the article, as it stands now.  See: WP:LEAD Chupper 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, exactly which portion of the article does it belong?  Since, the lead is supposed to be only a summary of the material below, then perhaps the section that mentions Romney's announcement should be deleted altogether --  or moved down.129.133.90.64 16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm Jewish, a Democrat, don't particularly like associating with Mormons, loved reading Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith, wouldn't drive a Ford if it were given to me for free, drive BMW's and Mercedes (despite what those companies did for the Holocaust), and would love to watch Romney trip a million times, but this is one of THE dumbest stories I've ever seen in my life.  Orangemarlin 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I figured this one would die on the vine over time, but that week it was in the news.  I'm trimming the announcement section since the "Nazi" connection seems well covered under the controversies section.  Powerlad 03:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ford and Nazis

message: It appears the time has arrived for gaffes and controversies to have a home.  What should the section be named? I'll propose 
* Controversies
Improvements or crticism invited. -- Yellowdesk 00:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good name to me.  Have we considered creating a Mitt Romney controversies article?  I noticed Hillary Clinton has one. Chupper 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No -- an article is premature, since the campaign is now weeks old, since the end of the Romney term as Governor. (And H.Clinton has had a long political life in very ublic view--not so for Romney).-- Yellowdesk 05:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps a new section - Controversies 

message: * This section is not a forum for criticism of the Mormon church.  It should only contain information on how Romney's religion has in fact affected the campaign, or how influential commentators have predicted that it may affect the campaign.  I'm deleting the "Why America is Concerned with a Mormon President" section.  Please do not add it back without reaching consensus on the talk page here.  -209.134.37.146 19:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobman, making threats is not within the spirit of what makes Wikipedia what it is.  A lot of Americans ARE concerned about a President of the LDS faith.  Here's the problem.  Romney was a liberal, if not RINO governor of the liberal Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  He gather endorsements for Pro-Choice organizations.  He looks and sounds like a good Democrat.  Then, one day, he decides to run for President, and toes the LDS line on several matters of faith.  After reading Soteriology's commentary, I agree that it probably violates WP:NPOV and the undue weight clause.  However, that does not mean you can eliminate a section on America's concern, just because you think the there is no reason to worry about an LDS president.  As a former Utah resident, I saw numerous reasons why I would not support an LDS president, but I'm a smart enough editor to use verifiable and supported sources.  Orangemarlin 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Orangemarlin - I am not the only one who has removed that section. I have done so twice, the other five or so times, someone else has. It is true that many Americans are concerned about a President of the LDS faith, and that is in the article. What does not belong in the article, however, is this section that Soteriology has consistently re-added several times. If you really don't want me to take it out again, that's fine by me, because I'm positive someone else will because of how obvious it is that it does not belong in this article. And by the way, the only reason I'm thinking of reporting the problem is because Soteriology has re-added that section several times, despite it being removed by different people and concerns on the talk page. The most recent time, the first post of this talk section had already been posted, but was blatantly ignored. Bobman52 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if you read what I read, I did not make an endorsement of the section.  I am concerned that you made a threat against Soteriology.  If he violated WP:3RR, which does no appear to be an issue, I'm not sure you have a "case" against him.  You are right, his section was blatantly POV, but the intent, as best as I can tell, was correct.  And you're right there are several articles on criticisms of Mormonism that he can edit.  Please remember the three revert rule applies to both sides of an editorial dispute, so rather than delete the section, I would suggest a rewriting, since I think, unless you are completely in denial, that many Americans are concerned about an LDS president.  I am a Liberal Democrat, and I've supported Harry Reid as Majority Leader of the US Senate.  But he's consistently moderate/left moderate, so I have no problems at this time.  Finally, as for the section being dreadful, that would be your opinion.  Once again, rather than get into an edit war, how about helping rewrite the section.  I'll contribute my knowledge, but I'm afraid I'm biased.  I usually do not edit articles where I have a non-verfiable bias.  Orangemarlin 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign%2C_2008#Religious_beliefs section that discusses the religion issue as it affects the Romney campaign. That section is entirely justified and reasonably well done.  What's at issue is Soteriology's added subsection, which is just a rant against the LDS with no connection to Romney.  There's no amount of rewriting that will save that subsection, as its reason for existence is bogus.  Wasted Time R 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The section in question was dreadful.  It had nothing to do with Romney, but instead was a general rant about things like whether Mormonism is "true" (by definition, you can't prove any religion to be true or false!).  As to the above comment, there's no evidence that Romney's changing views are to "toe the LDS line"; much more likely is that he is toeing the likely-Republican-base-voters-in-primaries line, which is exactly what Giuliani and McCain are doing as well.  Wasted Time R 20:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that's why I dislike you Republicans.  Perfectly responsible and liberal Republicans move far right to get votes.  What Guiliani and McCain are doing are quite reprehensible.  By the way, from a philosophical point, I disagree with the religion is "true or false" premise.  I factually dispute the Historicity of Jesus, and I quite saddened that millions of my people have died over the years at the hands of Christians.  But that doesn't have anything to do with Romney or his run for President, that's a debate for other areas.Orangemarlin 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, the POV tag was not justified.  Wasted Time R 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Soteriology's commentary is out of place here.  If you want to talk about the effects of religion on Romney's campaign, cite actual news articles such as this article about Regent University students and alumni who are protesting Romney's speech there on the basis that "his Mormon faith clashes with the school's bedrock evangelical Christianity. ... 'What we're against is the fact that Mormonism is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Christian values and what we believe,' said Doug Dowdey, a Virginia Beach pastor who said he graduated from Regent's divinity school last year." Unteathered criticism of Mormonism does not belong in this article. -Fagles 01:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious beliefs section 

message: Should this section become a subsection of controversies?  The fact that he is Mormon isn't a controversy directly, but the content of this section talks mostly about how it is a controversy.  Therefore I propose we move it to become a subsection of "Controversies".  Thoughts? Chupper 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  It's not a legal or ethical issue or a notable gaffe, but rather a discussion of a particular aspect of Romney that may make it harder for him to win the race.  It would be like a section discussing McCain's age, or Obama's inexperience, or Gingrich's low favorable/unfavorable poll numbers.  Wasted Time R 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly... those all would go under controversies! myclob 21:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move of Religious beliefs section 

message: *There is an active discussion about potentially revising the name of Political views of Mitt Romney to Political positions of Mitt Romney, or, depending on how the conversation develops, some other name.  In case you're interested,  go to  Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney#Requested move.  
*A brief history; the article started as a section called Political positions  in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 article, following a discussion at Talk:Mitt_Romney#This page lacks personal political beliefs.  It became a stand-alone article in mid-March. 
:: -- Yellowdesk 04:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about title of [[Political views of Mitt Romney]] article 

message: I think the opening paragraph could use an overhaul.  The language following the opening sentence seems to be very technical and wordy to lay reader and we are probably loosing a lot of interest at that point.  Any ideas how to rework it?--Atomicskier 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it a try. I think it  had its most recent significant edits before Romney had made the formal (and as the paragraph indicates, not so significant) declaration of candidacy. -- Yellowdesk 04:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done, but I'm sure it will need a little tweeking.  As you can tell, I tried to focus mainly on summarizing his platform, since I think that's what most readers that are just browsing through will be looking for.  I found it difficult to keep it short without using cleche generalizations like, "He's in favor of health care reform."  Of course I didn't want to go into to too much detail either since there is an article on the political positions of Mitt Romney.--Atomicskier 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: ... I think that should be mentioned... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.142.193.253 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romney's first biography is out... 

message: This article, especially the campaihn development section, appears to be 90% criticisms and very little about the development of the Romney campaign.  I'm thinking about putting up a NPOV tag.  What say ye? Antley 19:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with Antley, but let me put this in perspective. I'm a liberal. I live in Massachusetts. I suffered through his tenure as our absentee-governor, bashing the state that he was elected to represent and try to bring business into. I despise his politics. Yet, this article reads like a political hitjob rather than an encyclopedic entry. As much as I detest the man, I'm sure there are more positive things to say about him. Probably the most important thing about a campaign is the stated positions, yet there is simply a link here buried in the middle of the article to a different entry -- not even an effort to summarize. I think the criticisms are all fair and valid, but this does not read as a neutral article right now IMO. croll 14:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  tag going up. Joseph Antley 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The political positions have their own article at Poltical positions of Mitt Romney.  Most other candidates' campaign articles do not even have a link to their political positions.--Gloriamarie 23:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why in the heck is this dog thing included? "strapped a kennel with his dog Seamus to the roof of his station wagon for the 12-hour trip".  This is not relevant to this campaign in any way.  After reading the sources it was stated that the dog enjoyed riding like that and the family love their dog.  If Romney was a real animal abuser, I could understand that being mentioned.  Otherwise, this inclusion is laughable. I'll be removing it unless anyone really wants it included. Chupper 16:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's included because it received significant press attention and thus affected Romney's campaign.  (I'll bet more people could tell you about the dog incident than could tell you where Romney stands on the estate tax.)  The paragraph presents the criticism and presents Romney's response, so it seems OK to me (although of course there's more detail that could be provided, this level of coverage seems about right).  I'm restoring it. JamesMLane t c 20:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should just make a Criticisms of Mitt Romney article. But oh wait, then we wouldn't have a presidential campaign article. :roll: Joseph Antley 21:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the article tends too heavily toward the critical, the remedy is to add the counterbalancing information that you think is missing.  Don't try to achieve a spurious "balance" by depriving the reader of relevant, properly sourced information.  I haven't been involved in the article much -- have repeated attempts to include something nice about Romney been ruthlessly reverted by a hit squad of biased editors? JamesMLane t c 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If something significantly affects his campaign, it's relevant to this article -- even if the reason for the effect is that our media are superficial and find it easier to discuss subjects like that than to analyze Romney's position on health care.  Wikipedia, for better or worse, reflects the world as it is.  Speaking of dogs, we have an entire article about the Checkers speech, and rightly so.  It wasn't very relevant to Nixon's qualifications but it was important in the campaign. JamesMLane t c 05:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: James, I agree that material (if true) relevant to Romney's campaign should be included. However, the flow and structure of this article is completely different than any of the other campaign development articles for the other candidates. In the way this article is structured, each and every point is turned into a criticism, contradiction or a "gotcha". It's not balanced, and it can't be cured simply by adding new information. To the contrary, I think the article needs to be divided into two sections: something that substantively talks about his campaign, and another that discusses criticisms of the campaign. Having said that, I think the dog issue is really pushing the boundaries of relevance -- it was a hot topic for about two days and has since dropped off the map (except, perhaps, for PETA). I think it should stay, but it's pushing it, and should probably be in a criticisms section. croll 15:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone wants to add anything to the article, they can; I don't think anything currently in the article should be taken out although positive information should be added.  What types of topics should be included that are not?--Gloriamarie 23:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gloria, as mentioned, it's not just adding information. It's restructuring the article which is a bit more substantive. See Antley's proposal below, which I think is a fair one. Peace, croll 13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I reorganized it into a criticism section, its better now. If I messed up please correct it.--Southern Texas 03:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many criticisms in article 

message: I'm a little confused by a sentence in this article (the same one appears in the main Romney article):
:Former Governor Michael Dukakis criticized Romney for using Massachusetts State Troopers as security on his travels, as he never traveled with one during his 1988 presidential run, and stated that Romney's campaign should reimburse the state.
Shouldn't that be:
:...for using Massachusetts State Troopers as security on his travels, as he never traveled without one...
If he never traveled with one, what's the problem? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the sentence is written now is confusing.  Here's what it is referring to: Romney frequently traveled with Massachusetts State Troopers as security when campaigning for president.  Dukakis never traveled with state troopers during his 1988 presidential campaign.  Dukakis criticized Romney for using state money to campaign and said that Romney's campaign should reimburse the state.-Fagles 13:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Troopers

message: I reverted this last addition to the article:
:Romney is openly opposed by prominent pastor Bill Keller, who sent an announcement to his 2.4 million e-mail subscribers declaring "If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!"
because I have a hard time believing that someone we don't even have an article about is "prominent".  I think any discussion of opposition to him because of his religion is valid, but we don't have to include every little fringe pastor that opposes him.  A summary of opposition to him would be worthwhile, or even a specific opposition by someone who really is prominent.  But including every little minister or preacher's opposition will just clutter the article IMHO. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This article needs more about the development of Romney's actual campaign and less about criticisms of him. Joseph Antley 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, that pastor should not be included.--Gloriamarie 23:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone (who has since been indefinitely blocked for other reasons) had reinserted this section of the article and I removed it again yesterday. croll 16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious Opposition