Jump to content

Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Not a Lay Leader

Latter-Day Saint Bishops and Stake Presidents are ordained. Since Romney held those positions, he is clearly ordained and thus not a member of the laity. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Laity article discusses these positions and why they are considered lay clergy. Also, a stake president is not ordained as such. Most men in the church, regardless of having a leadership position, are ordained to the priesthood. It may be different than the kind of ordinations you are thinking of. Bahooka (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Bahooka. He was never a member of a professional clergy. Also, note that mainstream news sources refer to him as a lay leader, such as this New York Times story that is used as a source. In any case, the article only uses the term once; after that it describes what each position entailed, so that the reader can judge the nature and commitment involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Removals in park ranger and dog on roof material

@Collect: has, with this edit, restructured the early 1980s park ranger and dog on roof material. I'm okay with some of the changes but there are two removals that I think are ill-advised:

  • Removing that Romney threatened to sue the officer and the state for false arrest. This is Romney's side of the story and to me its inclusion is required by BLP guidelines. With the text the way it is now, the reader has no idea why the charges were dropped (in practice, there are several reasons why the authorities may do this) and no idea of whether Romney informally conceded guilt in the matter or not. In fact, he was willing to vigorously contest the arrest, and the article should state as such.
  • Removing the context for why the dog on the roof story is being included in the article. The way it is now, the reader would have no clue as why this apparently mundane episode is present. Collect's edit summary suggests that only 'POV addicts' care about this, but that's not the case. The reality is that this became one of those stories that people wouldn't let go of - as Neil Swidey, the original Boston Globe reporter says in the source we use here, "In the nearly five years that have passed since I dug up that golden nugget, there’s been so much chatter about the anecdote that “Romney” and “dog” have become inseparable dance partners in Google searches entered around the world" and "here we are, once again, watching the media and blogosphere — even the sober Wall Street Journal — fixate on Romney’s treatment of his dog nearly three decades ago." And in case you think Swidey is exaggerating, this Google News Archive search shows an endless stream of news pieces that refer to it. I'm open to the wording on this, but the article can't just mention the story, it also has to describe the reaction to the story.

I would ask Collect to reconsider these removals and for others to weigh in as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


First of all, the incidents are UNDUE by any rational standard. Second, the fact is that the records about the ranger were sealed. I would also point out that the use of the "dog story" as a political weapon seems to have died down, and seems a splendid example of "silly season" exercises.

Please note that the raw numbers Google News shows are inaccurate as a rule - and includes multiple "sources" using the same syndicated material. Your search on Google News gives the huge total of 18 results ("endless stream" is beyond hyperbole).

"LBJ beagle ears" (the notable case where LBJ lifted his dogs by their ears) gets 47 hits. We do not have any articles on LBJ lifting his dogs by their ears, by the way, nor is that incident even given a single word in his Wikipedia biography.

Unless, of course, one actually thinks the anecdotes are of earth-shattering importance? I would also point out that I expanded the ranger anecdote coverage which was almost entirely placed in a footnote - so I do not see exactly what your problem is with giving a fuller explanation that what had been in in the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't look carefully at the Google News Archive second page, you are right, my bad (their archive has definitely gone downhill compared to a few years ago). But there was lots of coverage on it - so much so that Leno started making jokes on it at one point, which means it hit the Middle American mainstream. While it's true that Romney opponents tried to capitalize on it, it also got a negative reaction from many dog lovers too. Now I personally don't think Romney did anything wrong and am a bit mystified by the reaction, that's just me, I'm not a dog person. My greater point is that it makes no sense to have it the way you do now - either take it out completely (which many editors would object to) or explain why it's there. As for LBJ, there is a mention of his beagle at one point in the article, and yes I would include a brief mention of the ear lifting thing there. It contributed towards his public image, just like Nixon and the 5 o'clock shadow and Carter and the attack rabbit and Ford and the falling down and so on. As JFK said, life isn't fair, and sometimes political figures get remembered for things that don't really matter that much, but that doesn't mean WP should ignore it. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Votre source: Partisans use political nanostories, he says, “to construct narratives that paint a dire picture of life under rule by the other side.” The Seamus story, he now admits, hung on longer than he expected, though lately the context has been more media than politics. Wasik, an editor at Wired magazine, predicts the Seamus citations will become more political and more plentiful if Romney becomes the GOP nominee, as President Obama partisans use it to paint Romney as a cruel character who, as Wasik puts it, will “sort of tie us all to the roof of the car.”

The anecdote is of marginal value to any biography of Romney - it is essentially a political attack story used by partisans. Your source, not mine. Collect (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Source for ranger story:[2]

The charges against [Romney] were dropped several days later and officially dismissed in February 1982 at Natick District Court. At Romney's request, the judge also agreed to seal the records, making them unavailable for public inspection.
Romney said the guard told him not to put the boat in the water or he would be ticketed and fined $50. Frustrated and feeling that the license was still somewhat visible, Romney defied the order, saying it would be worth his while to be fined $50 to enjoy the day on the lake with his family.
When he began to put his boat in the water again, Romney said the park ranger reappeared, furious over Romney's defiance, and arrested him. Romney said he was handcuffed and taken to the Natick police station and booked.

End of Boston Globe abstract. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Back in 2010 I purchased the full story from the BG archive. (I've bought dozens of news stories like this over the years.) Per the legal-ish notices on the thing I can't copy the whole thing here but here is the part dealing with the false arrest:

Romney said yesterday that the park ranger had overstepped his authority in arresting him and said the reason the case was dropped was that he had threatened to charge the officer and his agency, then called the Department of Environmental Affairs, with false arrest.
"He did not have the right to arrest me because I was not a disorderly person. This was an obvious case of false arrest," Romney said. "The officer obviously agreed because he agreed to dropping the case."

Again, this is Romney's side of the story, and it deserves to be in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What we have now after Collect's edit is more than sufficient. There is no need to belabor on this. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Lots of good stuff written here- except for this, offered by COllect: "First of all, the incidents are UNDUE by any rational standard." That is not more than a pejorative dismissal. These accounts, taken in amalgam with the totality of the article, increase the resolution with which readers are able to form a picture of a politically important figure. Either item are still topics of conversation when Mitt's Presidential candidacy is considered, and removing reference to them here does a disservice to readers- that's why I found the page myself. It is not for one editor to arbitrate justice or importance- our standard is accuracy and relevance. Let's work to make these elements as accurate as possible, and as brief as accuracy allows for- they warrant inclusion. Mavigogun (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually see WP:UNDUE and the fact that the "dog trip" material has a lengthy article in Wikipedia although few reliable sources give them much weight at all. I did not "remove" the claims, only sought to give them proper weight and follow WP:NPOV. That you consider UNDUE to be "pejorative" flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Where the amount of weight given far exceeds that given by non-partisan sources, there is a high likelihood that the weight given is excessive. Your apparent attack on me is thus unwarranted here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Collect: You misapprehend, Collect- I didn't characterize your use of UNDUE as pejorative, but rather "by any rational standard"; rather than a compelling, civil argument, it was not more than a proclamation with insult attached. You were not "attacked", nor victim- the wailing and chest beating is just tedious noise. Recounting the definition of UNDUE is not an argument.Mavigogun (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Complete removal of any detail of the hazing incident is bizarre. As is, the incident is not more than 'a prank he apologized for'- there is no hint at the assualt, why "pranks" are even mentioned, or why there was an apology. The removal is inexplicable. While there was debate on inclusion previously, the great weight was on the form of inclusion. Reading the archive, to say that the present form was the consensus isn't accurate- it more represents endurance of advocacy. For any coming to the article looking for clarity on the incident (such as myself) there is nothing to be had.Mavigogun (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Um -- where in hell does that accusation come from? Care to explain why you appear to accuse me of removing what was already discussed aeons ago and which has absolutely no connection to my edits? Per WP:BLP we are restricted as to how much we can make BLPs into political POV pieces, by the way. WP:NPOV is a non-negotiable policy. Collect (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Collect:I accused you of nothing. Your expletive detracts from civil discourse. Try to bring your temperature down below a boil. Aside from being needlessly didactic, waving the NPOV policy is not a demonstration of violated principle. If you feel it is necessary to make that case, then please do so. As is, your citation alone is substance-less- which is not to say that your position is without merit, only that you've made no real attempt to elucidate it.Mavigogun (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mavigogun:, I think you are missing Note 1 in the article which discusses the incident: "... In 2012, five former classmates described a 1965 episode wherein Romney, then a senior, took the lead in holding down a younger student while cutting his long, bleached-blond hair with scissors.[17] Romney said that he does not recall the incident, though he acknowledged that he may have participated in some high school "hijinks and pranks" that went too far, and he apologized for any harm that resulted from them.[23][24]" This is the compromise that worked out at the time: mention the WaPo story's account of what happened (and give Romney's response) in a Note, not in the regular text, but sort of allude to it in the text. Like all such compromises, it resulted in something no one was really happy with but that everyone could live with. That includes me – as you can tell by reading the archives, I wanted description of the incident to be in the regular text, but this was better than nothing. And it was I who reverted your change to this, not Collect. Nothing new regarding this incident has come out since the original reports that I know of, so I strongly believe the compromise should remain in effect. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R:I COMPLETELY missed the note; considering it now, I reckon that might have been the point! I'll add a couple words pointing to it. Your insight and intuition are both appreciated. Mavigogun (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are the motorboat and dog 'incidents' included under his business carreer, specifically under management consulting?

I think those two bits should be removed. they have absolutely no relevance to the section they are in. at the very least, they should be moved to the proper section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.30.192 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is organized chronologically (with a couple of concurrency cases where activity overlap occurred), with the section headers corresponding to the most important things that took place during that period, but not necessarily the only things. For example, the "University, France mission, marriage, and children: 1965–75" section has content which doesn't fall under any of those specific items but does in that time period, and the same is true for the "1994 U.S. senatorial campaign" and "2002 Winter Olympics" sections as well. So that's why these two bits are in that section, because it covers the period that includes 1981 and 1983. There isn't any ideal place for them, but handling them chronologically is to me better than the alternative of putting them into a campaign section, because each of them has been brought to light in more than one campaign.
However, previously these two bits were preceded by the sentence "Two family incidents during this time later came to light during Romney's political career." This text was to make it clear that these incidents were not connected to his business activities, but occurred during this time and would later become publicly visible in a different context. However @Collect: removed this prefacing sentence as part of the edit that I was disagreeing with above. I think it would benefit readers like this poster to restore that context-providing text and without trying to be annoying I would ask Collect to reconsider again. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The sentence was unsourced OR/SYNTH. Find a source making that explicit claim, else WP:BLP requires its deletion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The existing source for the park ranger article, the Boston Globe article by Frank Phillips, was published on May 5, 1994, has the headline "GOP hopeful arrested in 1981: Charge dismissed in boating case", and begins with the text "Republican US Senate candidate Mitt Romney was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct in the early 1980s after allegedly defying an officer's order." When this incident briefly got some play during the 2012 presidential campaign, it was related back to the 1994 campaign, for example this Deseret News piece from May 7, 2012: "The story of Romney's arrest first came to light in 1994 when he ran for the U.S. Senate against Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass)."
The existing first source for the dog on the roof story was published on June 27, 2007, and was the opening tale in Part 4 of the Boston Globe's 7-part "The Making of Mitt Romney" series. That whole series was predicated on Mitt's campaign for president in 2008 - look at its overview page: "Presidential candidates are more than the sum of their position papers; they are a product of their life experiences. The Globe's seven-part series, the most comprehensive biography of Mitt Romney, examines the forces that have shaped this Republican candidate for president in Campaign 2008." The existing second source for this, the Boston Globe 2012 retrospective on the matter by Swidey, begins "In the annals of presidential campaign coverage, I am an asterisk, and a tiny one at that – the journalist who unearthed the story of how Mitt Romney once drove to Canada with his dog Seamus in a carrier strapped to the roof of the family station wagon." Other media pieces about the story still getting attention in 2012 related it back to the 2008 campaign, for example this WaPo story from March 14, 2012: "The Seamus story first surfaced in the Boston Globe in a chapter of a biographical series the newspaper published in 2007, when Romney first ran for president."
So if I put back in this sentence, and add the these Desert News and WaPo pieces as sources for it, will that be acceptable to you? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Try adding a "Minor political issues" section, and say they were unearthed during his campaigns and used by his opponents. Frankly, I suspect you and I each have far more embarrassing stuff which could be "unearthed" by opposition research teams. On a scale of 1 to 10 on actual importance in any biography, I think these are at 0.5 at most, and added during "silly season" for possibly non-encyclopedic reasons. Collect (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I've now added the section. It has the advantage of staying within the chronology but separating it a bit from the business material. I added that the dog story has been used by his critics and opponents, but I don't have a source saying that Kennedy used the park ranger story against him (if you can find such a source, we can add it). And while the park ranger incident was probably found by oppo research, the dog one wasn't – the Globe reporter got it from a close family friend and then it was elaborated on by Tagg. I disagree with you about importance: anytime someone runs for high office, any arrest incidents they have had in their life are going to be come to light, and in my mind, rightly so; voters can then decide whether those incidents are important or not, and by the same token, they deserve to be here. And the dog story has gotten too much play to be ignored. But I do completely agree with you that I would never want to be the target of an oppo research team! Wasted Time R (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
And a sealed arrest record belongs where? Clearly there was no legal basis for the arrest, and thus it is of de minimis value in a BLP. Collect (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[3] The issue of Romney’s arrest first came to light during his 1994 Senate run against incumbent Senator Ted Kennedy, [4], [5] [6] etc. showing its clear political use. As I said before - the remnant of a 2012 "silly season" series of edits on Wikipedia. And there is little doubt that it did not "accidentally" appear in 1994 <g> unless you believe in the Tooth Fairy. Collect (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I already agreed that oppo research is likely what turned it up in 1994, but another possibility is that someone in the park system or courts happened to remember it once Romney starting appearing in the news for the first time and called up the Globe. None of the sources you give say that Kennedy used it against Romney in debates or TV ads or whatnot, so we can't just assume that fact in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Instead of mentioning minor incidents and saying opponents would make an issue of them later, it is better to mention them (if we do mention them) chronologically when they were mentioned. For example, in a section about a campaign we could mention which issues were raised. In that way we are not saying the incidents were important, but that some people found them so. Also the phrasing of these incidents should get to the point. Instead of beginning, "A state ranger in 1981...", just say "Romney was arrested for alleged disorderly conduct after a dispute with a state ranger over his boat's license plate." TFD (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Um -- Mass. boats do not have "license plates" - they (like all states that I know of) require that the numbers be of a specific size on the side of the boat. The issue the ranger had was his belief that they were not properly visible, not that the boat was "unregistered" but that the registration number was not readable by the ranger. And where a court seals the records, it is reasonable for us to believe the records were sealed for a valid reason, and that therefore we should not fall into the "silly season" trap of giving more weight to the "incident" than it objectively merits. And too often "silly season" stuff gets enshrined on Wikipedia instead of being properly filed in a cylindrical file. (The registration number is assigned when you register your boat for the first time. It should be painted or attached to each side of the forward half of the boat. It should read from left to right, be in block letters not less than three inches high, and contrast with the color of the boat's hull. The number consists of the letters MS followed by no more than four numbers and two capital letters. A two-inch space or hyphen must separate the letters and the numbers') Collect (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe the park ranger incident was added into the article sometime in 2010 (check the versions in the milestones history at the top of this page, it was certainly there in late 2010), not quite the silly season. The article has had several GA, Peer, and FA reviews since then and item has stayed in, and I don't see any opposition to its inclusion in past Talk archives. I agree that it is on the minor end of the scale of such things, and the fact that the records were sealed is significant, as is the fact that Romney threatened to sue for false arrest (which you took out of the article, to my disagreement expressed above). I continue to believe the incident warrants being briefly mentioned here, but it is something that reasonable people can disagree on, so if you want to set up an RfC on its inclusion, go ahead. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
[7] by you, in fact. Not to be proud of as you also added total trivia about sliding on ice cubes. (The sliding down golf course on ice cubes escapade apparently got Romney and Ann Davies arrested or otherwise detained by the local police. ) Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in case it wasn't clear from what I said earlier, I definitely did add it, I remember finding the BG story and buying it from their archives so I could read the whole thing. Thanks for digging out the actual change point. The edit summary is a bit mysterious but it was in contrast to my edit right before that, when I started the "Awards and honors" section. These were parts of my long expansion of the article up to GA/FA standards. The sliding on ice cubes bit is still in the article and should be - it shows what they were like in their youths, not quite the squares everyone might assume. People read (and vote) about politicians as people, not just issue platforms. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This could be done, but where do you put the dog story? It first came up during his 2008 campaign but got a lot more attention and traction during the 2012 campaign. That's one of the reasons I originally put it in the earlier section. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

He speaks the truth, FYI. Some will seek a Reagan-Conservative to run. 

Headline-1: Romney announces he will not run for president in 2016

QUOTE: "Mitt Romney announced Friday that he will not run for president in 2016. The announcement comes after the 2012 GOP nominee told donors earlier this month he was considering a run." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: Support Waning, Romney Decides Against 2016 Bid

QUOTE: For the Romney family, it meant the end of a dream that had consumed Mr. Romney since he was elected governor of Massachusetts and that had eluded his father over a generation earlier. “There’s a deep sense of both sadness and relief,” Tagg Romney said in a telephone interview Friday. “Sadness that he won’t be president, but relief that we will be able to lead private lives.” -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

I was already using this NYT piece as a source, but I agree the 'dream' part of this is a nice wrap-up and so I've added it to the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Headline-3: Former GOP nominee Romney will not run for president in '16

QUOTE: "The exit of Romney from the campaign most immediately benefits the other favorites of the party's establishment wing, including Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

This is better handled in Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 and other articles. Unfortunately, WP often doesn't have as much coverage of the "invisible primary" year as it should. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll put a note over there in the TALK section (for later editing); and thanks for fixing my link(s). Time was not wasted. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Potential 2016 run

So these sources -> [http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/big-name-republican-to-jump-in-race-challenge-trump/], [8], [9], [10] they are saying that close Romney aids are stating that Romney is thinking about another presidential run in 2016 to go against Trump. What do you guys think? Should we add this to the article? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on October 8 2015

Within the "2002 Winter Olympics"-section, the same source (https://web.archive.org/web/20091008153329/http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/articles/part5_side/) is cited twice for the same claim (The "Romney donated to charity the $1.4 million in salary and severance payments he received for his three years as president and CEO, and also contributed $1 million to the Olympics"-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.23.43.88 (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Good spot. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

"By early 2015 was actively considering the idea and contacting his network of supporters." Missing subject. 71.239.151.246 (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2016

I suggest to change

"In that year, he earned a Bachelor of Arts at Brigham Young and in 1975..."

to

"In that year, he earned a Bachelor of Arts at Brigham Young University and in 1975..."

in the introductory paragraphs because Brigham Young University is the actual name of the university, and Brigham Young is a person's name, which could be confusing or just sound odd. 67.134.57.98 (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm not convinced this change is necessary. Brigham Young is fairly well known university, and the context of its usage here makes it fairly clear the school and not the individual is being referred to. Note that the end of this same sentence says he received his JD/MBA from Harvard, not Harvard University, which is a similar situation (the school being named after John Harvard), only the school is more well known internationally. I'm just one dissenting voice though, so if other users agree with you and the consensus is for change, that's fine too. Cannolis (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Middle initial in infobox's heading

Look folks, see

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.

Established professional journalistic practice, per style manuals of the AP, NYT, ad infinitum, is to render a subject's name in that individual prefers, such as often in her/his signature. Thus it is WP's practice to render this in the header to the infobox when it conflicts with the shortened form the subject is generally known to the public by (as in wp:Common name); eg see Template:Infobox person: " If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the birth_name field, include them here." Cf. infobox header "Hillary Rodham Clinton" at WP article Hillary Clinton, etc.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mitt Romney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Romney family tree

I don't know how to make an addition to a family tree template. Can someone please add Ronna Romney McDaniel, daughter of Scott Romney and Ronna Romney? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Net worth outdated

I recommend removing the net worth information in the infobox. It is almost 10 years old and pre-Great Recession. If there is something more current then fine, but this old figure no longer seems relevant. Thoughts before I delete it? Bahooka (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Mexican?

At the very bottom under "Categories" shouldn't there be some mention of Mitt's Mexican background since his father was born in Mexico? Isn't Mitt technically Mexican American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.182.53.90 (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2017

Include on sentence that states the following. "News outlets reported in April 2017, that Mitt Romney was looking into a run for the U.S. Senate seat from Utah in the 2018 mid-term election."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/utahsen-mitt-romney/522096/ 169.253.194.1 (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane talk 23:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Mitt Romney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mitt Romney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Keep an eye on possible GOP US Senate bid to represent Utah

http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/13320-sources-hatch-considering-not-running-for-another-term-in-2018-romney-seriously-interested-in-replacing-him --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

update from Hatch: Romney not interested.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mitt Romney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mitt Romney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mitt Romney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2018

In the second paragraph it states "in his home area near Boston". This should be changed to "near Boston" as his home area is not near Boston. Brettniels1983 (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2018

Please replace the Official Website link in both the infobox and External links with the new one from his campaign announcement: https://www.romneyforutah.com/ Note: The old one redirects to the new one from the http version, but not the https version. No idea why, but I think it's confusing. 174.197.11.212 (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Niece

His niece, Ronna Romney McDaniel, is the chairwoman of the U.S. Republican National Party. She should be at least mentioned in this article. 37.99.44.161 (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right, but I don't know how to add her based on the way this article is currently written. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2018

In External links, please fix the category link in the Dmoz template. It should be

 Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2018

Re previous request for the official website. The infobox change was made (thank you!) but the External links change was not. 2600:1008:B117:BEEF:D48E:A352:4CA9:B35A (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it was. — MRD2014 Talk 03:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2018

No, it wasn't. Look at the link itself, not what it currently redirects to. The link remains www.mittromney.com which was his presidential campaign one. Now he's running for the Senate, and for whatever reason he's using a different url. This really is a simple, straightforward request to keep the article up-to-date. 2600:1008:B023:7E0E:505F:CDC3:EB2A:19B4 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Russia says it stopped...Sec'y State [nom]"?

Smthg to keep an eye on

  1. The Hill
  2. Newsweek
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Replacement infobox image

This one. More recent, better view of face, + an American flag motif. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volvlogia (talk • contribs) 14:00, February 16, 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2018

BrandonPKRhea (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Under 2018 U.S. Senatorial campaign it says "Since neither Romney or Kennedy". Grammatically, "neither" should always be paired with the word "nor." In this sentence, "or" should be replaced with "nor". - BrandonPKRhea (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for noticing the problem and bringing it here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2019

Please remove "incumbent" from the following line: "He was defeated by incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama in the November 2012 general election, losing...". Vavavictoriahh (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vavavictoriahh: Why? In the 2012 presidential election, Barack Obama was the incumbent. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no "personal life" section

There should be one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

New photo

Mitt Romney in 2018

It's more current than the one at the moment, and until (presumably) Romney gets an official Senate photo its the most recent one from his Senate career. Bold and Brash (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. --Volvlogia (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

New Image

File:Senator Mitt Romney.jpg
Senator Mitt Romney

This photo is from his Senate website, and is likely to be his official portrait. Bnml84 12:18, 12, January 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnml84 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox photo

The standard for official photos trumps the consensus of using a lower=-quality photo that had a consensus on this page prior to Romney's Senate days. I think it's pretty clear that the Senate photo should be used. The fact that only one person is complaining about the horrible photo usage is ridiculous. No one has had a problem with it since it was switched. The note was only there for the lower-quality image. Corky 18:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Presuming the unnecessary reference above to ridiculous behavior is aimed my direction, I have never had skin in this game. Just observing the long standing note & presuming it should be addressed. It didn't make reference to the prior issue being a quality issue or not. The photo was barely switched, since he's been in office all of a month, yet nobody addressed the note. Nobody was complaining about it & others observed the same notion regarding the note since he took office. It wasn't that hard to address why the note was there on the talk page, so now everyone ought to be relieved. ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"2016 Presidential Election" section

The last line about how he was treated for prostate cancer in the summer of 2017 neither takes place during the election of 2016, nor is it relevant to the tone of the rest of the section. This information should either be in another part of the article or expunged altogether. 2600:8802:2100:130B:D5FF:FFF5:BFE8:32B7 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

the link to his Senate page in the External links is broken. it should be https://www.romney.senate.gov/ 67.220.13.88 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for catching this! Sdkb (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Coverage of impeachment vote in article

Romney being the 1st senator to vote for the removal of a president from his own party[1] clearly seems notable, but is it notable enough to be in the intro? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Should the article include this? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/05/donald-trump-acquitted-senate-impeachment-trial?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlVS19XZWVrZGF5cy0yMDAyMDY%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK

Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump – and he became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. Romney voted “guilty” on article 1, for abuse of power, and “not guilty” on article 2, for obstruction of Congress.

“I support a great deal of what the president has done,” Romney said on the Senate floor. “But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside.

“The president is guilty of a flagrant abuse of public trust. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.” Peter K Burian (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Peter K Burian, it already does. Maybe not the quotes, but we don't need the quotes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Peter K Burian and Muboshgu: While that’s already in the article, is it notable enough to be in the intro? Even if it’s not notable enough for the intro, it’s definitely a historic 1st. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, include in intro as one sentence at the end. It's clearly a historic vote that will have a lasting impact on his legacy. There's a lot of edit history since yesterday — has there been any serious opposition to putting it in the lead? If not, let's just be bold and add it. Sdkb (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb There’s 1 person who’s opposed, but the majority of people seem inclined to include it in the intro due to the historic nature of the vote. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Blaylockjam10, past history (e.g. Nixon) indicates that this is likely to be on his tombstone, so yes, it should be in the lead. Guy (help!) 15:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
JzG That’s what I thought, but I wanted to see what other people thought. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I saw the well written section in his tenure as Senator and personally do not think this should be considered such a defining moment to deserve inclusion in the introduction.Pbmaise (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Include in lead per the above. This is certainly among the most important votes he will ever take as a senator, and his unique decision out of the 100 senators (and in American history) deserves coverage in the lead. Davey2116 (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Update The prevailing consensus here seems to be that it should be in the lead, so per WP:THEDEADLINEISNOW I added the following: In the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, he voted to convict the president of abuse of power, becoming the first (and so far only) senator in U.S. history to vote to remove a president of their own party.[2]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ Leibovich, Mark (5 February 2020). "Romney, Defying the Party He Once Personified, Votes to Convict Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 February 2020.

Sdkb (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Sdkb, Peter K Burian (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"Merely reinforced his resolve" and neutral POV

Some of this article seems less-than-neutral in tone and phrasing. For example: "When the French expressed opposition to the U.S. role in the Vietnam War, Romney debated them. Those who yelled at him and slammed their doors in his face merely reinforced his resolve." This reads like a grade-school hagiography, not a neutral article. At the least, this could be improved by re-phrasing to "Romney later recounted that..." Or see the NYTimes phrasing of this anecdote: "“Are you an American?” was a common greeting, Mr. Romney recalled, followed by, “‘Get out of Vietnam! Bang!’ The door would slam.” But such opposition only hardened their hawkish views."

Frankly, I think the entire door-slamming episode could be removed without loss, and the rest of the article should be checked for neutral tone. BrandeisCardozo (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Republicans for the Rule of Law thank you(s)

Republicans for the Rule of Law (Defending Democracy Together) ran various ads thanking Romney.

Examples:

X1\ (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Please stop using Youtube videos as a reference, it looks like you re-added them. They do not belong. PackMecEng (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Templated yt for Reader clarity. X1\ (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

March with Black Lives Matter and Political positions

both section describe the March, should the relevant texts be combined?

T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead should mention impeachment votes

Being the first senator in U.S. history to vote to convict a president of his own party is extremely notable. It is definitely something that stands out in Romney's life and career, and will be a notable aspect about him 50 years into the future. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That, and his second impeachment vote SRD625 (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Strong Agree I believe that is such a monumental part of his career. He's receiving the Profile in Courage Award for those acts. The One I Left (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Do not confuse influential for notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Impeachment votes in lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A unanimous consensus exists in support of including the relevant information in the lead. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Should the lead mention that Romney voted twice to convict Trump in his Senate impeachment trial (becoming the first Senator to convict a president of their own party)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes. Being the first senator in U.S. history to vote to convict a president of his own party is extremely notable. It is definitely something that stands out in Romney's life and career, and will be a notable aspect about him 50 years into the future. This is obviously something that will be highlighted prominently in his obituary. It would be bizarre to omit it from the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Agree with what already stated. Romney's actions have gained him significant media attention and new founded notoriety. Romney not only made history by being the only Senate Republican to vote to convict a Republican president, but earned the "Profile in Courage Award" specifically for his vote. Agree re obit, and legacy. It would be an act of personal partisanship to omit such content from the lead.
  • Lean Yes. I was going to say no, until I say the length of the lede. I'd say that the historic importance is probably significant enough that a sentence is perfectly appropriate. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes Definitely one of the most notable moments of his career. It was widely discussed in the media, and the information is well established in the body of the article. I agree with the above poster that it probably shouldn't be more than a sentence, however. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes . We probably should also include, for context, that he usually votes with his party — making the impeachment vote an important exception to the usual rule. Neutralitytalk 14:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes Definitely one of the most notable moments of his career. It was widely discussed in the media, and the information is well established in the body of the article. I agree with the above poster that it probably shouldn't be more than a sentence, however, as per above. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference 460

Reference 460 leads to an article that contains nothing that reference 460 was sited for. Richard918273645 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead should clarify why Romney voted to impeach Trump

It is helpful context to clarify the two separate events that led to Trump's impeachment. It is helpful for readers who are unaware of current US politics to briefly mention that Trump was impeached over X and Y. I fail to see the reason why this context was removed, except to obscure the impeachable offenses that Trump committed, and make Romney look worse. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I note that the removal of the context was made by the same editor who kept the impeachment votes out of the lead in their entirety in the first place (prompting a RfC - see above - which ended in unanimous consensus and which the editor did not bother to participate in). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I am not obliged to participate in a RfC, especially one where you failed to give me a courtesy ping. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Include reasons for Romney's Trump impeachment votes

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Summary: There is broad consensus that the article should include the fact that Romney voted to convict Trump during the impeachment trial, but there is a split consensus on whether it should be included in the lead. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Should the lead state what Romney voted to convict Trump over in his impeachment trials? For example, should the bolded text be included in the lead:

Survey

  • Yes, include. It is helpful context to clarify the two separate events that led to Trump's impeachment. It is helpful for readers who are unaware of current US politics to briefly mention that Romney voted to convict Trump over X and Y. I fail to see the reason why this context should be removed, except to obscure the impeachable offenses that Trump committed. I think readers who read this page 50 years from now will appreciate that the lead clearly and concisely spells out what this senator voted to impeach a president of his own party over, just as readers who do not follow US politics in the present will appreciate that clarification. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Of the disputed text, the first is: ...of abuse of power in relation to the Trump-Ukraine scandal. I think this one is fine. The second is ...for his role in inciting a pro-Trump mob to storm the U.S. Capitol. I'm more hesitant about this one; that seems to be slipping it in as fact that Trump did in fact do so, while that's disputed and the investigation into it is still underway. If "alleged" were added before "role", I would be more comfortable including that. Even with high-profile public figures, we still have to consider WP:BLP. Of course if Trump is convicted for any such involvement, the "alleged" can be dropped. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Include. It's useful information, especially as the Trump years fade into history and we don't all immediately remember what the "first impeachment" was, and I haven't seen (and can't think of) any reason not to. BOLD edits are a perfectly permissible way to establish a consensus, and editors reverting them should do so either because they disagree with them (and are willing to start a discussion and arrive at a consensus), or if efforts to reach a consensus about it are already underway and have failed. Reverting an edit simply because "no consensus", where there hasn't been any effort by either side to reach one, doesn't make much sense. Agree with Seraphimblade about adding "alleged". (summoned by bot) Gaelan 💬✏️ 23:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No, omit and describe in the article body. Not convinced that being a Republican that crossed Donald Trump is sufficiently defining about Romney to include in the lead that already very long. That said, the gory details are best stated in the body. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, include. Necessary for the reader's context, doesn't take up much space; "first" and "second" will baffle many readers when, as Gaelan notes, the Trump years fade into history. Neutralitytalk 17:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No, don't include. While it may be a notable event, I believe that it should be in the body. As a senator it is his duty to vote for what he and his constituents want and believe. Including this in the lead seems to be a means of political bias WP:NPOV Should the vote of every member of congress for every issue be placed in their lead? On the impeachment vote, should every other members vote he highlighted in their lead, it was just as important as Romney's? Tepkunset (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, include, due to its encyclopedic significance and specificity. It's also significant and notable from a historical POV, since Romney was only one of a handful who stood up for the US Constitution while his peers remained silent. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Not now - I would argue that some above are right it may define him, but we don't know yet... see if he is still a senator after the next elections. If not it maybe reason to add it because you could argue that is a big reason why but until then wait to see what happens. DoctorTexan (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No, don't include. I agree with the previous RFC that the lead should mention Romney voted twice to impeach Trump. While the reasons-for-impeachment are important in a broad sense, they have no direct connection to Romney. Including them in the lead of this article is wandering off on too much of a tangent. We should resist the temptation towards bloat. Any reader who wants more info on the impeachment can look to the body - or better yet they can follow a link to the impeachment article. Alsee (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, include. Its good to mention what the impeachments were about since they were notable events as well as for the readers. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, include.Relevant information to the reader, in the context of the impeachment. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, include. Can't we believe we're discussing this again. Romney's two impeachment votes are clearly and unambiguously among the most notable moments of his career. Claims that mentioning this in the lede would be violating WP:NPOV are laughable. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No, don't include. This is not the defining aspect of Romney, and we should not bloat the lede just to highlight these tangents. If the readers want to know the details they can scroll down. Also there is the issue by Seraphimblade of these being mere allegations that are disputed with investigations still underway. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, include. Considering he normally votes with his party. Sea Ane (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No, omit per Tepkunset and Emir.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, include as an Australian, it's one of the only times that Mitt Romney came into the news here in the last 5 years so I think it is a notable enough event to put in the lead. --Almaty✉✎ 14:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Omit. There's a lot to say about Romney already, and I think including this would veer into WP:UNDUE WP:RECENTISM. It should certainly be in the body, however. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • No, omit It would be better in the body. It is not an important event of his life. Jaxarnolds (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, include. The context is included in most sources and is important to understanding what the vote means as part of Romney's biography; while it might be obvious to American readers right now, we ought to write with both international and long-term audiences in mind, for whom the significance could be opaque. --Aquillion (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • No per Sdkb and Emir's comments above, it obviously should remain in the article but not in the lead. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, include. This is helpful for understanding context.-CranberryMuffin (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

  • This RfC is necessitated by the fact that one editor keeps scrubbing text on this from the lead while repeatedly claiming that there is no consensus for the text (despite the fact that a RfC last month concluded with unanimous consensus for inclusion). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
    The RfC was to make some inclusion, exact wording was not agreed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This RfC seems to be about whether we should name the specific allegations for each impeachment ("what Romney voted to convict Trump over"), not whether we should mention the impeachment votes at all. Some !voters are reading this as being about whether the impeachments are worth mentioning in the lead at all. While that may very well be worth discussing, let's make sure our !votes are unambiguous. Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    I concur with Gaelan - while the RFC does specifically ask about whether to name the specific allegations I found it confusing. I am unsure whether all respondents are answering the same question, and I suggest any closer carefully consider whether each respondent is actually responding to the correct question. Alsee (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    I tweaked the heading for the RfC to try to eliminate the confusion. (Added the words "Include reasons for" to "Romney's Trump impeachment votes") Hopefully that will help. ~Awilley (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    There was a previous RfC were it was agreed to include this in some form, but exact wording was not agreeded. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Weasel wording

Edits such as this have been inserting weasel words and making generalizations that seem to us unnecessary when individual viewpoints are already covered. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV let's say who did the attacking and who did the ridiculing, according to what is in the reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, agreed that these edits need to be reviewed and revised. I also despise the tendency of editors to go WP:INTOTHEWOULDS. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

children: 5, including Tagg

Why is it necessary to point out one of his children specifically here? Just seems odd. 2601:681:A00:5430:7444:FBCB:8095:400F (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Typically done in WP when one of the children, Tagg in this instance, also have a WP article about them. The others presumably do not. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Birth place

MITT ROMNEY was born in Colonia Dublán, Chihuahua, Mexico as a member of the polygamist sect "The church of the first born" 2601:681:4F02:6E0:E1A8:C68:7E29:7225 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

[citation needed] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Lobbying

Why is there no info in the article that Romney has received millions of dollars in bribes from NRA? This is an incredibly important part of what/who he is, which should be documented in the archives! Or is Wikipedia biased? The Awkward Man (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC) User:The Awkward Man 11:58, 26 may 2022 (GMT+1)

If you're interested in adding to the article, I suggest reviewing WP:BLP and WP:RSPUSE to ensure the content you're adding adheres to the WP:MOS and maintains neutrality. If you feel these parameters could be met with your addition, be bold (WP:BEBOLD) and add the relevant information. Tepkunset (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Residence

He no longer lives in Holliday, UT. 172.83.7.74 (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Source, please? 331dot (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of the term Mormon except in historical reference

Wikipedia should allow the removed of the term 'Mormon', but should instead be referred to as member of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Lastter-day Saints or "Latter-day Saints." [11] The reference Mormon has an biogoted origin similar to other derogatory that are not allowed for other groups and was brought to prominence during the extermination order of Governor Boggs. [12] Aeonoftime2 (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023

The sentence, "He was attacked by Trump supporters for not backing Trump's unverified conspiracy theories...", in the context of the 2021 U.S. Capitol attack, could mislead readers into thinking that Romney was physically attacked at the airport. Neither of the two refs uses the word "attacked"; they use "heckled" and "harassed", both of which appear in the preceding sentence. Please change to "Trump supporters were angry that he had not backed Trump's unverified conspiracy theories". 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:A8E6:3EA1:5219:B7BD (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I actually rewrote the whole sentence to describe what the crowd were saying instead of interpreting it in wikivoice:

Cellphone footage of the incident showed Trump supporters accusing Romney of not supporting Trump's baseless claims of election fraud, and chanting "Traitor! Traitor! Traitor!" as Romney boarded his flight.

Feel free to reach out if my changes are not acceptable to you. Xan747 (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747:, that is an excellent edit. Thank you. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:8D93:7A35:1165:3DCC (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome! Xan747 (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Why nothing about his family?

Articles about women usually include information about their family life, even when it isn't relevant. Why does this article not have anything at all about his family life, given that the senator makes such a big deal of sending out photos of his family? See this column for an example of how central the issue is to his image: New York Times, "The Hidden Moral Injury of OK Boomer." 49.37.24.220 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Right in the lead I am told "He married Ann Davies in 1969; they have five sons." There is plenty more (not surprisingly) in the section titled College, France mission, marriage, and children. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitt_Romney/Archive_24&oldid=1251935815"