Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 1

message: Let's discuss possible changes here.  In particular, please do not revert correction of the formatting of external links without discussing it here.
* I think this discussion page should be organized similar to the other page. Within each section, new topics should go to the top.
* Formatting of external links - see "External Link Style" below
* right / privilege - the 5th amendment right not to testify should probably be called a right.  privilege is something else--Fagles 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are responding to the subject headings (next section down).  This is about footnotes.  See Wikipedia:Footnotes - nobody actually wants to revert to an obsolete way of putting in footnotes, do they? --Fagles 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: It looks like the reversion undid updated formatting of footnotes.  I think it is better to use the new footnote formatting.
* Your formatting was very confusing. Illegal tuition rates have nothing to do with Romney's education plans.
::I think you are responding to the subject headings (next section down).  This is about footnotes.  See Wikipedia:Footnotes - nobody actually wants to revert to an obsolete way of putting in footnotes, do they? --Fagles 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting of footnotes

message: It does seem to make sense to have the subject headings be descriptions that are comprehensible to people who are not familiar with MA politics - "Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill" and "Health Care" will be more useful subject headings than simply "Melanie's Bill" and "Health Care for All"
* Your formatting was very confusing. Illegal tuition rates have nothing to do with Romney's education plans. 
::I agree that the "education" formatting was confusing and have changed it, but what about the others you reverted?  Do you think that "Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill" and "Health Care" are worse than "Melanie's Bill" and "Health Care for All"? --Fagles 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject headings

message: This sentence in the article seems a little negative. I think it violates the NPOV 'rule'.
"When polls showed Romney's popularity starting to slip, while state support for same-sex marriage and opposition to an amendment began to rise, Romney scaled back his anti-gay efforts, at least for the rest of 2004."
Mind if I give a shot at cleaning it up?
DanielAmelang
:I based that on polling information from summer/early fall 2004, so it wasn't just any bias on my part. I guess I should not have assumed that is why he stopped his homophobic language, especially since he's back in full force with all that stuff now. If you want to clean it up, be my guest. --JamesB3 10:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Well, this was my best shot at a clean up: "Perhaps due to lack of support manifested in the polls, Romney temporary suspended his efforts towards an amendment.". I put in the 'perhaps' because I feel squeamish about second-guessing Romney's reasons. But, since this was just a brief change in behavior, I decided to just leave the whole thing out. Let me know if that's a problem, I'm far from immovable on this. --Dan 20:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: ===Reasons to agree===
# It uses too many press releases as sources (so find a different source, and change it).
# :Why isn't his religion or Presidential campaign not mentioned in the Lead section??--Gkklein 18:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, why aren't they in the lead section? This seems obvious. That they aren't included seems part of a larger bias. -Aaronshaf 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  His religion should not be in the lead section, unless he is running for president of the Mormon church. Mitt Romney is a businessman, and a Governor of Massachusetts. When other politicians have their religion mentioned in their first section, than so should Romney. Unless you want this article be accused of sensationalism.70.142.206.0 01:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article is Bias

message: # It uses too many press releases as sources (so find a different source, and change it).
# :Why isn't his religion or Presidential campaign not mentioned in the Lead section??--Gkklein 18:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, why aren't they in the lead section? This seems obvious. That they aren't included seems part of a larger bias. -Aaronshaf 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  His religion should not be in the lead section, unless he is running for president of the Mormon church. Mitt Romney is a businessman, and a Governor of Massachusetts. When other politicians have their religion mentioned in their first section, than so should Romney. Unless you want this article be accused of sensationalism.70.142.206.0 01:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons to agree

message: # No matter how many times people say this article is biased, does not make it so. I would spend more time proposing, and making changes, and less time saying that "this article is bias".
# When all you read is the [Boston Globe] and then you read this article, you might be suprised at this article. You might be suprised to read that Romney balanced the budget. All the Globe is capable of writing is violent anti-Romney propoganda. But the facts on this page are indisputable. If they portray Romney in a postive light, you will have to just deal with it, no matter how the facts might be brought into line with your Romney hatred.
70.142.206.0 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons to disagree

message: == Biography ==
Using "tar baby" as his nickname is not only untrue, but it also is derogatoryy towards him. The "tar baby" nickname should be removed to not look like an offensive statement.
===Home===
The way this reads right now, it talks about his residency, and his religion. It needs to be better organized than that. I guess someone removed the ==home== section, is everyone alright with this? Should we create an "old section headings" section? myclob
===Birthplace===
Natural-born citizen says Romney was born in Mexico, but this article says Detroit.  Which one is correct?  CryptoDerk 20:31, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
::Looks like neither. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2002/races/ma_governor.html says Bloomfield, Michigan (close to Detroit, I think), and I trust PBS. Any other ideas? --Dan 05:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mitt was born in the USA.  His dad was already a prominent politician when before he was born.  --RyanKnoll 14:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

text: No, because it is not likely it will be an issue, and certainly not an NPOV one. If southern Protestants, as you call them, do complain about him being a Mormon, then it will become an issue you can talk about here. Far more likely is the anti-religious wingnuts of the Democratic Party will come up with positively loony accusations. Except this didn't quite work against Bush, and would likely inspire those who are religious to side with Romney. And I believe a lot of people wouldn't buy it, because Anti-Mormons tend to be much loonier than the "George Bush destroyed the Twin Towers" crowd. Jgardner 17:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jgardner, since you're Mormon, I'm going to assume the whole issue of Romney being Mormon is a touchy and perhaps embarrassing issue. But this is getting into the media now. This is an important issue. And your OPINION that his faith won't be an issue is in contrast to all the articles out there on it. Romney's faith need to be mentioned. -Aaronshaf 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Falwell even had many Mormon leaders in his Moral Majority group in the early 80's, which is now the Christian Coalition led by Pat Robertson.  Politically, Romney is one of the strongest advocates for Christian-like and conservative positions (see his advocacy for the Federal Marriage Amendment)...and Christian leaders understand this.
DoorFrame has moved information about Romney's religion to the opening paragraph. I'm moving this point further down the article: looking at a random selection of other governors' entries, it looks like we don't put their religions so high up their entries, and I don't see any reason to single out Romney for special treatment. So far as I am aware, his religion does not have "headline" influence on his performance as governor, so it seems slightly POV to stress it.  WMMartin 13:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally, I don't think it belongs in the article at all unless it affects Romney's current or future performance as governor, or his presidential campaign. Dubhdara 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that does save us from having to find a source for it. I have no opinion one way or another. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think it belongs in the article, I assume that means you agree I can remove it?  I'll assume so, and make the removal - if you object, please speak up. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent - 10 minutes after I removed it, User:Orangecar22 was kind enough to provide a source.  I'm satisfied; if only the rest of my edits went so well. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitt Issues 

message: Using "tar baby" as his nickname is not only untrue, but it also is derogatoryy towards him. The "tar baby" nickname should be removed to not look like an offensive statement.
===Home===
The way this reads right now, it talks about his residency, and his religion. It needs to be better organized than that. I guess someone removed the ==home== section, is everyone alright with this? Should we create an "old section headings" section? myclob
===Birthplace===
Natural-born citizen says Romney was born in Mexico, but this article says Detroit.  Which one is correct?  CryptoDerk 20:31, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
::Looks like neither. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2002/races/ma_governor.html says Bloomfield, Michigan (close to Detroit, I think), and I trust PBS. Any other ideas? --Dan 05:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mitt was born in the USA.  His dad was already a prominent politician when before he was born.  --RyanKnoll 14:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

text: No, because it is not likely it will be an issue, and certainly not an NPOV one. If southern Protestants, as you call them, do complain about him being a Mormon, then it will become an issue you can talk about here. Far more likely is the anti-religious wingnuts of the Democratic Party will come up with positively loony accusations. Except this didn't quite work against Bush, and would likely inspire those who are religious to side with Romney. And I believe a lot of people wouldn't buy it, because Anti-Mormons tend to be much loonier than the "George Bush destroyed the Twin Towers" crowd. Jgardner 17:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jgardner, since you're Mormon, I'm going to assume the whole issue of Romney being Mormon is a touchy and perhaps embarrassing issue. But this is getting into the media now. This is an important issue. And your OPINION that his faith won't be an issue is in contrast to all the articles out there on it. Romney's faith need to be mentioned. -Aaronshaf 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Falwell even had many Mormon leaders in his Moral Majority group in the early 80's, which is now the Christian Coalition led by Pat Robertson.  Politically, Romney is one of the strongest advocates for Christian-like and conservative positions (see his advocacy for the Federal Marriage Amendment)...and Christian leaders understand this.
DoorFrame has moved information about Romney's religion to the opening paragraph. I'm moving this point further down the article: looking at a random selection of other governors' entries, it looks like we don't put their religions so high up their entries, and I don't see any reason to single out Romney for special treatment. So far as I am aware, his religion does not have "headline" influence on his performance as governor, so it seems slightly POV to stress it.  WMMartin 13:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally, I don't think it belongs in the article at all unless it affects Romney's current or future performance as governor, or his presidential campaign. Dubhdara 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that does save us from having to find a source for it. I have no opinion one way or another. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think it belongs in the article, I assume that means you agree I can remove it?  I'll assume so, and make the removal - if you object, please speak up. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent - 10 minutes after I removed it, User:Orangecar22 was kind enough to provide a source.  I'm satisfied; if only the rest of my edits went so well. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: Natural-born citizen says Romney was born in Mexico, but this article says Detroit.  Which one is correct?  CryptoDerk 20:31, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
::Looks like neither. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2002/races/ma_governor.html says Bloomfield, Michigan (close to Detroit, I think), and I trust PBS. Any other ideas? --Dan 05:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mitt was born in the USA.  His dad was already a prominent politician when before he was born.  --RyanKnoll 14:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Will somebody mention how such a challenge it would be for Romney to run in 2008, considering how southern Protestants, including Jerry Falwell, take issue with the Mormon religion? Would any conservatives here like to try mentioning this? -Amit
:No, because it is not likely it will be an issue, and certainly not an NPOV one. If southern Protestants, as you call them, do complain about him being a Mormon, then it will become an issue you can talk about here. Far more likely is the anti-religious wingnuts of the Democratic Party will come up with positively loony accusations. Except this didn't quite work against Bush, and would likely inspire those who are religious to side with Romney. And I believe a lot of people wouldn't buy it, because Anti-Mormons tend to be much loonier than the "George Bush destroyed the Twin Towers" crowd. Jgardner 17:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jgardner, since you're Mormon, I'm going to assume the whole issue of Romney being Mormon is a touchy and perhaps embarrassing issue. But this is getting into the media now. This is an important issue. And your OPINION that his faith won't be an issue is in contrast to all the articles out there on it. Romney's faith need to be mentioned. -Aaronshaf 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Falwell even had many Mormon leaders in his Moral Majority group in the early 80's, which is now the Christian Coalition led by Pat Robertson.  Politically, Romney is one of the strongest advocates for Christian-like and conservative positions (see his advocacy for the Federal Marriage Amendment)...and Christian leaders understand this.
DoorFrame has moved information about Romney's religion to the opening paragraph. I'm moving this point further down the article: looking at a random selection of other governors' entries, it looks like we don't put their religions so high up their entries, and I don't see any reason to single out Romney for special treatment. So far as I am aware, his religion does not have "headline" influence on his performance as governor, so it seems slightly POV to stress it.  WMMartin 13:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The issue of his faith 

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

message: ==== Statement about Ann's MS ====
I removed the following statement from the article: Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998. as it didn't have a specific source cited.  I assume it can easily be backed up from news reports; please cite one or more and re-add it (cited) to the article.  Just being careful with possibly damaging information. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think it belongs in the article at all unless it affects Romney's current or future performance as governor, or his presidential campaign. Dubhdara 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that does save us from having to find a source for it. I have no opinion one way or another. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think it belongs in the article, I assume that means you agree I can remove it?  I'll assume so, and make the removal - if you object, please speak up. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent - 10 minutes after I removed it, User:Orangecar22 was kind enough to provide a source.  I'm satisfied; if only the rest of my edits went so well. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Family

message: I removed the following statement from the article: Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998. as it didn't have a specific source cited.  I assume it can easily be backed up from news reports; please cite one or more and re-add it (cited) to the article.  Just being careful with possibly damaging information. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think it belongs in the article at all unless it affects Romney's current or future performance as governor, or his presidential campaign. Dubhdara 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that does save us from having to find a source for it. I have no opinion one way or another. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think it belongs in the article, I assume that means you agree I can remove it?  I'll assume so, and make the removal - if you object, please speak up. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent - 10 minutes after I removed it, User:Orangecar22 was kind enough to provide a source.  I'm satisfied; if only the rest of my edits went so well. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement about Ann's MS 

message: === Warren Tolman? ===
Warren Tolman ran in that race too.  While I know his share of the vote was not large, I find it hard to believe that it was less than the 1% that Carla Howell got. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 2002 Campaign for Governor

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

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

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

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

message: ===Taxes===
I think taxes are one of the more important issues. Some say Romney has not raised taxes, and some say that usage fees have gone up...Weather the section sound pro-Romney, unbiased, or anti-Romney, I think the section should be one of the top 5 issues, not down at the very bottom. Please offer your suggestions!myclob 01:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More broadly, what order should the issues be in - chronological order? order of importance? alphabetical order? (btw, the health care bill is mentioned in the "healthcare" section)--Fagles 21:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Issues

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

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

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

message: I do not see how some one can write that Romney "successfully pressured" Billy Bulger to resign when Romney's staff says that the governor didn't target Bulger.  Even if Bulger believes he was the victim of a calculated assault, Romeny denies it. So which is it?  Bulger is right, Romney's staff is wrong?  Bulger is wrong, Romney's staff is right?  The Globe article is wrong?  The New York Times is wrong?  
Personally I believe Romney did target Bulger.  But, if his staff is denying it, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe that he did not successfully pressure for Bulger's resignation. 
By the way, the last editing was terrible.  Lots of typos and it removed the correct format for the Globe citation.  But since I've exceeded my three reverts I'll wait until tomorrow to fix it.  Unless someone else wants to fix it.
Dubhdara 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More broadly, what order should the issues be in - chronological order? order of importance? alphabetical order? (btw, the health care bill is mentioned in the "healthcare" section)--Fagles 21:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billy Bulger resignation 

message: Should it be mentioned first? Shouldn't the health care bill be mentioned?
:More broadly, what order should the issues be in - chronological order? order of importance? alphabetical order? (btw, the health care bill is mentioned in the "healthcare" section)--Fagles 21:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is William Bulger really the biggest thing of his Governorship? 

message: The article rather repetitively describes the state legislature:
*"democrat-heavy state senate"
*"Democratic controlled legislature"
*"the Massachusetts House of Representatives, which is controlled by a Democratic party supermajority,"
*"Democratic-controlled state legislature"
The Massachusetts legislature is indeed controlled by the Democratic party, but I wonder whether that needs to be repeated each time the legislature is mentioned (it would also be silly to say "Romney, a Republican" every time his name appears in the article).
Before changing it, I'm interested in getting other people's opinions. --Fagles 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using "Democrat" as an adjective is a solecism, though one much beloved by the right wing.  The party is called the Democratic Party.  I understand your concern, because I believe that calling Bush a "Republican" creates potential confusion with leaders who accept republican values, as opposed to imperial ones.  Nevertheless, we can't suppress a party's correct name just because we think it's a misrepresentation. JamesMLane t c 03:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "democratic-controlled legislature"

message: Which is better in an encyclopedia:<BR>
a) Romney recently advocated a nationwide focus on education ... OR<BR>
b) Romney recently took a powerful position on education, advocating a nationwide focus on education ...<BR><BR>
a) the Governor filed amendments to restore some of the provisions that had been omitted by the legislature OR<BR>
b) the Governor filed amendments to restore some of the key provisions that had been omitted by the legislature<BR><BR>
a) the legislation that reached the Governor’s desk bore little resemblance to Romney’s original plan OR<BR>
b) the legislation that reached the Governor’s desk bared little resemblance to Romney’s original plan <deliberate reinsertion of a grammar error?><BR><BR>
a) Romney has offered an initiative to provide health insurance ... OR<BR>
b) Romney has offered a bold initiative to provide health insurance ...
:The answers seem obvious to me. In each case, the second alternative is the least encyclopaedic. I'll support any attempts to keep those out of this article. --AaronS 23:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion Adjectives

message: == 4/29/06 ==
He is a Governor, not a "Republican Politician". Looking at George Bush's profile, they don't mention his political party until 3 or 4 paragraphs in. Now I don't no were to put that he is a republican back in. Maybe someone else can do it.
Also I was looking at George Bush's Bio, and I liked these sections:
1. "Personal beliefs and ideology"
2. "Domestic policy"
3. "Foreign policy"
4. I also think there should be a seperate section for his two candidacies, the Ted Kennidy campaign were he lost and one for the campaign that he won for Governor.
5. Also we should create a "Public perception and assessments " section.
I need to study now, and have no time to educate myself in these issues (reading articles) and writing an article.
Please help!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_w_bush
=== The new catagories cut up articles and made a mess. ===
re: "This page has been absolutely destroyed. What a horror show. EVERBODY TAKE A DEEP BREATH. The new catagories cut up articles and made a mess. Reverting a few steps. Discuss sweeping changes."
I'll talk about it before I make changes, but I tried talking and no one responded to me. I suggested many weeks ago that William Bulger was not the most important thing to date in Romney's governorship, but there was no response. 
I do not think the new categories "cut up articles". Previously information about his political campaigns were scattered around everywhere. We should take this stuff out of "Governorship" and delete it, or put it under each campaign. I suggest making a section for each campaign.
Also Mitt’s views on Abortion are mentioned under his Governorship. Mitt has and can do nothing about Abortion as a Governor. He has affected stem sell funding as a governor, but that is a different subject. That is why I put his beliefs on Abortion under a separate category. If you look at Bill Clinton and George Bush’s profile, well I know George has a section on his personal beliefs.
If you say what specifically is a “horror show” before undoing everything I did, I will discuss each change before I make them from now on.
==Links==
I tried organizing them, but made them their own category, on accident...
Do we really need so many Mormonism links with Mitt? Is that really the most important thing about him? He doesn't talk about it, so why should we?
:: Your organization looks good.  I changed it so the subsections are not different categories.  I agree that there are a lot of articles about Romney and Mormonism.  If it's because most articles about his political prospects focus on Mormonism, we should probably leave them in.  If this is an unrepresentative sample of articles about him (which seems to be the case), I vote for deleting two of them and moving the best one into the section of "Articles about Romney"  --Fagles 20:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Governor.Romney@state.ma.us
Is there an email address for contacting him at his current/future campaign?  If so, please include it in the article. 69.87.193.134 12:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes by date not by subject

message: I tried organizing them, but made them their own category, on accident...
Do we really need so many Mormonism links with Mitt? Is that really the most important thing about him? He doesn't talk about it, so why should we?
:: Your organization looks good.  I changed it so the subsections are not different categories.  I agree that there are a lot of articles about Romney and Mormonism.  If it's because most articles about his political prospects focus on Mormonism, we should probably leave them in.  If this is an unrepresentative sample of articles about him (which seems to be the case), I vote for deleting two of them and moving the best one into the section of "Articles about Romney"  --Fagles 20:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: I changed back Atlanta44's alteration of the formatting of some (but not all) external links.
Here's the new style:
* This is a sentence (see[]).
This is the correct style:
* Sentence about Romney.  
Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28links%29#Position_in_article before changing the style.
Even if we did decide to use the (see external link) format, it should be used for all the links.  It doesn't make sense to change the style just for some of the links and be left with different formatting in different parts of the article.  
--Fagles 16:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Is there an email address for contacting Gov. Romney, at the governor's office?  If so, please include it in the article. 
:Governor.Romney@state.ma.us
Is there an email address for contacting him at his current/future campaign?  If so, please include it in the article. 69.87.193.134 12:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: email contact info needed

message: == Prior to his political career, Romney rose to prominence as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. ==
Actually, as stated elsewhere, he lost to Ted Kennedy in 94. I'll change it. 
Well I did change it, but someone changed it back. Can we change this wording?
Actually he ran for Ted Kennedy's spot and almost won, before the Olympics thing. So this statement, "Prior to his political career, Romney rose to prominence as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City" is false.
* The wording should definitely be changed, since it is currently inaccurate.  I wouldn't say that he "almost won," since he lost by 17%.  By the way, please sign your posts by typing four tildes ("~ ~ ~ ~" without the spaces).  I propose the following wording: 
::Before becoming Governor, Romney rose to prominence in an unsuccessful 1994 campaign against Senator Ted Kennedy and as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. He is frequently considered a possible candidate for the 2008 presidential election." --Fagles 03:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote no on different domestic and foreign policy sections.  If they are created, I definitely would not put the tuition bill in a foreign policy section.  Fagles 03:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes that have been made, and everyone is OK with 

message: Actually, as stated elsewhere, he lost to Ted Kennedy in 94. I'll change it. 
Well I did change it, but someone changed it back. Can we change this wording?
Actually he ran for Ted Kennedy's spot and almost won, before the Olympics thing. So this statement, "Prior to his political career, Romney rose to prominence as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City" is false.
* The wording should definitely be changed, since it is currently inaccurate.  I wouldn't say that he "almost won," since he lost by 17%.  By the way, please sign your posts by typing four tildes ("~ ~ ~ ~" without the spaces).  I propose the following wording: 
::Before becoming Governor, Romney rose to prominence in an unsuccessful 1994 campaign against Senator Ted Kennedy and as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. He is frequently considered a possible candidate for the 2008 presidential election." --Fagles 03:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prior to his political career, Romney rose to prominence as CEO and organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. 

message: This section so far functions mainly as a forum for editors to post their personal assessments of Romney (e.g. "remarkably successful as a Republican in the most Democrat-dominated state in the country where the state legislature has veto-proof Democrat majorities").  It might be possible to make it more neutral through extensive citation of articles, but doing so would make the section very long given the number of issues about which people could argue: Should he get credit for anything done by the legislature, or did veto-proof majorities make him irrelevant?  Who should get credit for the health care bill, him or the legislature?  Who should get credit for balancing the budget, him or the legislature? Was balancing the budget good or did it require too many cuts in services?  Did he really do it without raising taxes, or do massive fee increases count as tax increases?  Who approves and disapproves of his performance on various social issues?  Who thinks he was too liberal?  Who thinks he was too conservative?  Who thinks he flip-flopped?  And so on.  I think it's better to keep these debates out of the article itself.  
The section of links to pro- and anti- sites lets people read what proponents and opponents are saying.  I would be fine with someone posting a chart with the results of public opinions polls tracking his approval rating.--Fagles 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose deletion of "Public Perceptions" section

message: Re: "Finishing clean up of toxic waste dump that has become this article. Domestic Policy? Who thinks up these categories? He is a Governor. Everything he does is domestic policy. Think about edits!"
You don't think Mitt Romney deserves to have a section about anything but domestic policy?
He is a freaking candidate for the president of united states! Shouldn't people understand a few of his biggest beliefs that would affect other things than just domestic policy? Mitt Romney has said a lot of things about Terrorism. Is the president the only one that affects international politics? Why do Governors go overseas than?
And Governors do affect other things than just domestic policy. There are a lot of articles about how Mitt would not give in-state tuition to Illegal Allians. This is an interaction with a foregn government.
:I vote no on different domestic and foreign policy sections.  If they are created, I definitely would not put the tuition bill in a foreign policy section.  Fagles 03:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic Policy 

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

message: This page is littered with phrasing that makes it read like something from Romney's campaign office. Here are a few examples, but there are MANY more. Until this is cleaned up, I think this tag should remain.
Examples of NPOV violation:
:The Organizing Committee's leadership and policies were restructured, budgets were tightened and fundraising was placed back on track. Under his leadership, the 2002 Olympic Winter Games turned into a spectacular success
:In the general election, Romney captured 41% of the vote versus Senator Ted Kennedy's 58% in the closest election of Kennedy's long Senate career. Pre-election polling had the two much closer than this and so the "scare" that Romney put to Kennedy endeared him to many of Massachusetts Republican voters (LOSING by 17 points is hardly a scare)
:Refusing to raise taxes, Romney cut spending and restructured state government.[26]. (REFUSING is POV)
I am not going to get into a revert war, but please leave in the POV-Check tag until this is properly discussed here.
Do not list the accomplishments of his businesses unless you can show that it was the result of Romney's action. You are listing present statistics for these companies, but you do not show that Romney is still working there. The size of Staples is really irrelevant. Please use proper sources.
:I appreciate that  Redsox777 has started to rectify the sourcing issue. I still believe that the style of the writing warrants a POV-Check tag. For instance, several of the sources she (he?) uses are clearly partisan, relying heavily on commentators like George Will. As an example,  Redsox777 cites a column by Will claiming touting Romney's 17 point loss to Kennedy as a kind of victory because it was the closest race Kennedy has had. However,  Redsox777 also cites another opinion article, this time by Mitch Frank of Time Magazine that calls the same race a "drubbing" for Romney. Obviously, using adjectives to describe Romney's defeat is POV. Why not just leave it at "Although early polls predicted a close race, Romney lost to Kennedy by 41% to 58%."? Rearranging words is part of the definition of spin. In general, the phrasing throughout the article is written in the style of a PR piece by Romney's campaign. It shouldn't be in the style of an attack ad by his enemies, but it shouldn't be a puff piece either. Let's just stick with the facts. And please, let's all agree that opinion columnists and partisan web sites should not be used as sources. Do not remove the POV-Check without discussing this issue on this page please. Notmyrealname 04:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem, sorry I missed it before.  When I get home tonight, I'll do some cleanup, too, I'm noticing a few problems myself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm thinking it still focuses too much on a lot of irrelevant information on his opinions at this point and can be severely trimmed, but in trying to dispel the edit war somewhat, I'm near 3RR and don't want to run into any issues.  I'm against removing it for the moment, but I think there's a lot of NPOVing that can be done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that opinion pieces are valid sources, then why did you just delete a section claiming it was "unsourced and unverified" when it cited the [[Boston Phoenix}}? Also, how do we deal with the plagiarism problem I document below?Notmyrealname 03:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I've slashed a ton of stuff from the middle section, as it was confusing itself and much too large compared to what's important and the rest of the article.  More can be existed, but I figured the rest of you could take a look first before I attempted to possibly slash more.  This still needs a lot of work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no, actually.  I did not "destroy" this page, nor did I remove "important" information.  For instance, you readded a ton of information about Chapter 58 that is better served in the actual article.  It's more responsible to make a clear, concise, relevant entry about Mitt than to keep expanding things until it becomes unwieldy.  How about explaining why you feel that all that information is relevant rather than making such a rude commentary on what I'm doing? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needing an overhaul

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

message: I have amended the text for the Olympics section so that it does not plagiarize the Weekly Standard column that it cites. Simply citing a source does not mean that you are not plagiarizing if you take text word-for-word and do not put it into quotes. I have tried to edit the content to remove the tendency towards POV.
For specifics, please see my comment above under NPOV.
Please see  regarding copyright problems.
For those who keep reverting this text, please be advised that "In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project." This really shouldn't be a big deal.Notmyrealname 18:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: , 
A lot of people have done a lot of work. There has been extensive reviews, and discussion. I keep hearing people say that this should be nominated, and so I am doing it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myclob (talk • contribs) 23:09, 22 October 2006 UTC .
Since the nomination was not properly completed, with an advocacy statement or request for particular aspects to review, and since the article cannot hope to become a featured article for failing to have proper references at the bottom of the article, (see below section References fail to follow policy) the tag for the review was removed today. Yellowdesk 05:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mitt Romney]]

message: This section reads like a Public relations item put out by the Romney campaign. It needs comment from legislators that declined to act on Romney proposals, and rationale about why the legislature found other priorities more worth funding. The language is ahem, not of neutral point of view either.   Yellowdesk 01:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any suggestions? Any specific things you think should change, or are you just going to keep saying, "This section reads like a Public relations item put out by the Romney campaign"? I think your the biased person here. Why would we put in stuff from legislatures that disagree with Romney on the Romney article? Why don't we put what Romney thinks, believes, does, and says in the Romney article, and put what other people do, and say, in their articles. If you feel sorry for the poor ignored Massachusetts legislature, you can always start an article for them, but leave their opinions out of Romney's article! People are smart. If they disagree with a direct quote from Romney, then they disagree. What is the bid deal?Myclob 10:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically Myclob's suggestion is to not explain the lack of response to numerous of Romney's efforts on his own page but to push the explanation into a separate page, a tactic known as a Point of View Fork, a standard means to keep a particular article topic free of uncomfortable text and history.  See Wikipedia:Content_forking for further detail on the lack of desirablity of that kind of proposal.    Romney has a credibility problem not mentioned in the article. He is unable to obtain traction on many of his statements and desires, and this is an important part of his political life (biography) as governor. Yellowdesk 04:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See my responce below. User:Myclob
I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that Romney has a "credibility probelem." How do you detemine this? How do you back it up? The reason why some of his proposal dont make it is because his legislature is dominated by his opposing party. He doesn't have enough members of his party in the legislature to even uphold his vetos. I am not sure how you can attribute the fate of his proposals to a "credability probelem" rather than partisan politics.--Waverider5 03:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education legislation and rhetoric (funding in Massachusetts)  

message: Yes, General Court is the constitutional term, but who in California or Florida will care? If they want to know the constitutional name, they can click on the link. The Globe even fails to call it the General Court regularly. Yellowdesk 03:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shire town is the  statutory  term for county seat in Massachusetts. Some people argue it is the "correct term" Ever heard of the term? Your audience is a general audience that cares not about the name of the Massachusetts legislature. Yellowdesk 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add to this discussion the use of the term "corner office" in the 2002 campaign section. This is a colloquial term only used in MA. I propose that we substitute this with "Governor's office."Notmyrealname 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Court 

message: I suggest the leading editors of the Mitt Romney page take a look at the Wikipedia:Citations_quick_reference, and then look at the more detailed Wikipedia:Citing_sources, which describes the policies on Wikipedia for citing sources.  Unfortunately the Mitt Romney article (as of October 25, ,2006) fails to use a prescribed system, has partial use of two different systems, and complete use of none. For this merely technical reason alone, the article will fail a Wikipedia:Featured article review. 
It has, nine footnotes of the  Wikipedia:Footnotes variety, using the     markup, and about 150 of the so-called  Wikipedia:Embedded_Citations, and none of the embedded citations is shown with complete source-article information in a references section at the foot of the page, as the policy indicates they should.
The refences section is intended to give the reader printing out the article a visual indication of the sources, including especially:
* Author
* Article name or Headline
* Journal name
* Date of Publication, with page if known,
* Date last retrieved
 
An exemplary demonstration of what should be seen on a reference is desribed in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Embedded_HTML_links. 
Nevertheless, I actually recommend using the  Wikipedia:Footnotes instead of the  Wikipedia:Embedded_Citations, as you won't have to keep proofreading the article carefully to see if any new references have failed to be put in the References section--they are automatically put in via the footnotes system using     markup.
 ==== Embedded HTML links ====
Web pages referenced in an article can be linked to directly by enclosing the URL in square brackets.
For example, a reference to a newspaper article can be embedded like: , which looks like this: 
In the References section, you should also list a full citation:
*Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005.
which appears as:
*Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005.
Yellowdesk 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References fail to follow policy 

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

message: Since the nomination of several days ago for  Wikipedia:Featured_article_review:
* was never properly completed, (see the above section Featured Article Review nomination is incomplete and, since
* the the article will definitely fail such a a review because of its inadequate references as described  in the section above References fail to follow policy, 
I have removed the   template  from this talk page, (the template is the start of the Featured Article review process, when properly submitted), 
* so that a sure rejection can be avoided.  
I propose that a simple Wikipedia:Peer_review be conducted to further the review and improvement process for this article meanwhile. 
If someone disagrees with this assessment, this is a good place to speak up. Yellowdesk 03:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fully agree that this page is in need of a NPOV review. Thanks for your input on this page.Notmyrealname 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdraw from Featured Article Review 

message: Should we have a "criticism" section similar to the Obama page? User:Myclob
- Yes, this article is so biased as it is.
: I am going to start deleting accusations of "this article is biased unless people say WHY it is biased, and propose ways of fixing it. This kind of makes me mad. And then, to say this again (how many times has it been said), and not leave a name... Its pretty pointless. User:Myclob
::i find your defensiveness annoying. it's biased when it comes to initiatives, the real image of Mitt, and the fact he is a part-time governor and royally screwed up on Big Dig.
:::Way to go! Don't sign your name. You have some really great conclusions. Perhaps you can share with us how you came to those conclusions. Do you only go to the Boston Globe for your info. Tell us about the initiatives. Inlighten us about the "real image of Mitt". How is he a part time Governor? He doesn't get a pay check, and so it seems to me like you are getting a good deal. Just because the Boston Globe mentions that Mitt Romney travels a lot in every article they have ever written about them, lets see some thinking on your part. Can you show one time when Mitt Romney's travels have harmed Massachusetts? Maybe you should elect your Governors from now on by who spends the most abount of time within the state boundries. Forget weather or not they can balance the budget, stop spending from rainey day funds, forget if they consolidate duplication, all that matters to you and the Boston Globe is how many hours they spent within the boarders of the beutiful, and best state in the union, Massachusetts. Tell us, how he screwed up the Big Dig. You know that thing was actually around before Mitt Romney. You know, Mitt Romney has been calling for transparency at the Big Dig for a long time. Back in 93 and 94. No one listened to him. So what would you have done differently for the big dig? 70.142.206.0 01:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism/controversy sections are discouraged, as they are (arguably) inherently POV (see Wikipedia:Criticism for more detail).  Criticisms and controversies should be discussed as their own events, in this case, they can be incorporated in the (generally) chronological narrative that this article is structured on.  Please add what you think is missing! schi talk 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I humbly submit that the topic order in this entry have become somewhat random, especially the division between the Governorship section and the "other issues" (a division that seems rather arbitrary and may be a candidate for deletion or rephrasing).
Here are the topics as they currently exist:
1-Health Care
2-Education Initiatives
3-Budget Balancing
4-Same-Sex Marriage
5-Death Penalty
6-Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill
7-Abortion
8-Stem Cell Research
9-In-State Tuition Bill
10-Environment
11-The "Big Dig"
12-Gun Control
13-Crime
14-Minimum Wage
15-William Bulger
16-May 2006 Flooding
17-Khatami Controversy
18-Tar Baby
19-“Affordable Housing:”
20-Taxes
It strikes me that these seem to fall under certain categories. The most important are the things that Romney has actually done, or bills that have been passed. The next would be issues that he has had a hand in or reacted to, but not a central role, and bills that he has proposed but that did not pass. Third would be the minor issues and topics that Romney was somehow linked to (these often seemed important at the moment, but with the passage of time have proven to be tangential), and positions that Romney has taken on issues that matter more to his future Presidential run than his governorship. I think a few of the items on this list could be up for deletion or at least chopping down to a sentence or two. A few of the topic descriptions themselves are more editorial than necessary.
I'll let others offer their thoughts before I make my suggestions.Notmyrealname 20:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. If people don't like it they can change it back. I would say go for it, but I don't really have a good idea of how much change can be done with people still being OK, so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt. [User:Myclob] 9:10PM Idaho, USA Time, Nov 2 1996
The order seems good as is. I wouldnt delete sentances just for the sake of a reorder.--Waverider5 01:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, these are really two separate issues: cutting things down and reordering. My concern is that there is no rhyme or reason to the existing order of things. Is a drunk driving bill really more important than the Big Dig? Why is abortion number 7, when it's all about his position on abortion, rather than anything he's actually done as Governor? I have some thoughts in regards to trimming some of the entries (Khatemi controversy, Bulger, and Tar Baby are obvious candidates), but let's leave that as a separate discussion for now. Anyone else have any thoughts?--Notmyrealname 18:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my suggestion for a reorder- 1st group (bills that have passed or ongoing policy issues like crime) 1, 3, 11, 6, 13, 20, 10, 19. 2nd group (important issues that Romney has been involved in but was not central to, and proposed initiatives that failed) 2, 4, 8, 9, 14, 12, 5, 16. 3rd group (positions that he took without any action, also "controversies" that few will care about in a few years) 7, 15, 17, 18. Maybe we could even have a section of "policy positions" separate from his governorship, but that will be of interest to people who want to know his position on national issues if he runs for Pres.--Notmyrealname 22:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with notmyrealname. I'm a nird and think that maybe a google search of the heading would tell you the aproxomate length of the issue... for instance of you google Mitt Romney and Taxes and Get twice as many sites as Mitt Romney and WIlly bulger, than maybe that is twice as big an issue... There are so many ways to organize things. Chronological. Importance. Romney involvement. Massachusetts Government importance... Possible 2008 President importance...Maybe we look to lexus nexas for answers. I mean, most people only know Romney for Healthcare... that is probably the most important thing, or the bigest thing that people associate with Romney, then I've heard of him being some sort of turn around magician in context with the budget... then there have been the batles over same sex marrage, and those three issues seem to have gotten the most attention, but who cares! I mean newspapers are kind of stupid... we want to be more scholarly, and so maybe we should follow our own rules, if we can figure them out, as to what we think is more imporant. I don't have any conclusions, I guess I just like hearing myself talk. myclob 03:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed reorder 

message: Sections should not contain information based soley on Romney Press releases. Press Releases generally show only 2 things 1.) Romney quotes and 2.) Romney proposals. Oustide sources such as articles need to be used to affirm the veracity of facts, and the actual fate of Romney proposals.
Also, every single Romney website does not need to be linked to the page. Only major ones should be linked. If they are all posted, it will clutter the page.--Michael16G 13:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Myclob, perhaps now would be a good time to go ahead with that proposal of yours to consolidate the Romney campaign sites.Notmyrealname 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press Releases and Romney site links 

message: I would organize things by chronological order...
Here is a list of actions, and statements, in order, if you want to use as a reference:
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/veterans
myclob 17:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure looks like a lot of fluff to me.Notmyrealname 01:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't write it, but I did add a couple of things he did in 1993... the record started in 2005 when I first read it... but some of the stuff I put in, was taken out... I wasn't real proud of it, so I'm not going to try to put it back in, but, it was taken out by someone who was not signed in, and they didn't explain why they took it out... Like I say I wasn't real proud of it, but I just don't think the section is that difficult to write.... I did a google search of mitt romney and veteran, and looked at the first 20 or so pages that come up, and then looked on my page of all the Romney press releases for any time anone said anything about veterans... I have that on my page, and kind of like it better... it gives all the facts, and lets people read more about who did what... But I don't know70.142.206.0 02:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  veterans 

message: Atlanta44 deleted my posting in the environment section. Please explain why or I will put it back in. It referred to a current ranking of the MA's environmental spending record in a non-partisan magazine. Seems like it would be very relevant for those seeking to evaluate Romney's record in this area. Thanks! --Notmyrealname 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Massachusetts has the country's sixth-largest park lands system. However, in 2006 Governing Magazine ranked the state 48 out of 50 for per-capita park funding and 50th when calculated as a percentage of personal income.Daley, Beth. "Estimate to fix state parks system leaps" Boston Globe, Nov. 12, 2006.
I really think this additon is out of place and pretty unimportant. The environemnt section is about enviornmental policy (i.e. the Greeenhouse Gas Pact, off shore drilling, wind farms, etc.). The source shows that the funding pretains primarily to recreational facilites (i.e. pools, playgrounds, paths, and buildings). This has more to do with Romney's budgetary priorities than it does his enviornmental record.--Sierraonfire 19:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for posting an explanation. I think it would be helpful if more editors of this page got into that habit. That said, I disagree with your analysis. The section is "Environment," not "Environmental policy." In any case, I think his budget priorities are better sign of his policies than mere statements of principle. (In fact, I would recommend putting his positions about Arctic drilling in some other section related to pronouncements that have nothing to do with his actual governing. But I digress). The article specifically mentions "state parks, forests, and parkways" before the other items you mention. I think most people in MA would agree that these things would come under the heading of environment (thus "Environmental groups say the cuts ...". Also, according to the article "In addition to the parks' maintenance budget, Romney sliced a wide range of environmental items, such as $154,590 for environmental law enforcement, $288,900 dedicated to helping communities provide cleaner water to residents, and $181,886 for hazardous waste cleanup." So, I think it's pretty clear that this is equal in pertinance to the entire paragraph dedicated to the Cape Wind Project, that in the end, Romney doesn't really have anything to do with. If others think this doesn't belong here, I would ask that we figure out a place for it. "Public Parks"? Environmental Stewardship?--Notmyrealname 02:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Governor Romney's religous beliefs and participation in his faith is a part of his story, and who he is, it quite appropritely informs his political actions (opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage). In the last three days, three different users have edited the article to make mention of some of this, only to have it deleted by the users RedSox777 and WaveRider, and listed as absurd, or citing that other potential presidential candidates do not have their religion described in their articles. First, there is mention of religion in several politicians' articles; second, few potential candidates have been as religously active as Gov. Romney, serving s two forms of priests, then as bishop, and having participated on a church board and personally financing the building of a temple in Belmont, Massachusetts. A sub-section on religion in the biography section, or its own section? How should we appropriately list these pertinenet part of this potential presidential candidate's life? This is all cited information, it is not conjecture. Continued diligent deletion of this information is not a resolution, and pushes the article towards fluffiness inviting third-party review. Constant removal of references to his participation in his faith suggests bias.  13:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Romney's faith is frequently mentioned in the conservative press. See footnote 15 from the National Review "In 2008, Will It Be Mormon in America?", number 18 from the Wall Street Journal "Latter-day President?: A Mitt Romney candidacy would test the religious right". His faith is clearly noteworthy, but should always be presented in regards to NPOV policy.--Notmyrealname 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Involvement within the Mormon church means nothing, because we have no paid ministry. Everyone is involved. I teach a sunday school. I don't know of very many men who make it to their 50's, who have enough money to support their family, and the calling won't hurt them that bad, who won't be called as bishops. I think we can have higher standards than those publications that have to make a living by selling tantilating stories. Also, do we have to create a new catigory, every time someone new wants to talk about a subject. Please copy and paste this to the other place where is faith is discussed. Just like your mother said, I'm tired of cleaning this place up! myclob 02:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Whereas I doubt that Mr. Romney would be named f/ a mitten, nor glove,...
Someone, please say the definitions f/ "Mitt",... & "Wilcken".
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta  | [[ %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  -]] 06:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mitt]]; [[Wilcken]],... 

message: : The following was originally posted to Talk:Mitt Romney/Comments, but should have been added here instead, so moved. Could not put in approximate chronological order, as that time-period for this talk page has already been archived. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 
This article is heavily biased in favor of Mr.Romney. It is transparent that this was submitted by the Romney camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.81.24 (talk • contribs)   00:37, 26 September 2006 UTC
:The article needs formatting and content improvements. Some POV issues also exist.--Yannismarou 07:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Talk:Mitt Romney/Comments