Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:42, 31 July 2012 editStillStanding-247 (talk | contribs)4,601 edits →POV← Previous edit Revision as of 19:51, 31 July 2012 edit undoMollskman (talk | contribs)1,361 edits →POVNext edit →
Line 371: Line 371:


Thomas, not only did you fail to respond to my objections, you went ahead and reverted. Your behavior is unconstructive and verges on edit-warring. Worse, you added new material that violates BLP. I am going to revert your work and I'm going to invoke the rule about reverting BLP violations not counting against 3RR. ] (]) 19:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Thomas, not only did you fail to respond to my objections, you went ahead and reverted. Your behavior is unconstructive and verges on edit-warring. Worse, you added new material that violates BLP. I am going to revert your work and I'm going to invoke the rule about reverting BLP violations not counting against 3RR. ] (]) 19:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
:This seems to be a content dispute. Labeling it as vandalism in your edit summary is not helpfull and could lead you to being blocked, just a heads up. --] (]) 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:51, 31 July 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).
A fact from Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 April 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2011/April.
Misplaced Pages

What's with the "Battleground states" section?

What does this section have to do with being specific to the Romney campaign? It should be in the "United States presidential election, 2012" article, if anywhere.

And why does it only list polls that are favorable to Romney? Or is that a stupid question? :-)

My opinion: delete that section, it's too partisan and doesn't belong in this article. RenniePet (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's no corresponding section in the "Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012" article.
Maybe I should add a "Battleground states" section to that article, listing only polls favorable to Obama, and citing this article as precedent? :-) RenniePet (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
No response, so I'll delete that section. It is not providing factual information; it is a mixture of wishful thinking (if you're a Republican) and Republican talking points and cherry-picking of polls that are favorable to Romney.
Some examples, using Nate Silver (who is so much smarter than me that I humbly stand in awe when I gaze on his web site) as a source of unbiased data:
Ohio: Here it says "A May 2012 Rasmussen poll showed Romney tied or slightly ahead of Obama in Ohio." Nate Silver says Obama has a 65% chance of winning Ohio.
Pennsylvania: Here it says "Romney has polled ahead or tied Obama in Pennsylvania 6 of 24 polls reported from 1/11 to 4/12." Nate silver says Obama has an 81% chance of winning Pennsylvania.
Colorado: Here it says "A June 2012 Rasmussen poll showed Romney tied with Obama in Colorado." Nate Silver says Obama has a 69% chance of winning Colorado.
Michigan: Here it says "Four of five tracking polls taken in June 2012 showed Romney in a virtual tie with Obama in Michigan." Nate Silver says Obama has an 81% chance of winning Michigan.
RenniePet (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed it should be removed not for reson stated however. Polls change on a daily basis so trying to keep up with them during the middle of a capaign is almost impossible.Viewmont Viking (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Battleground states section is legitimate information in a presidential campaign, so it stays.Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Maine Controversy and Allegations of Voter Fraud

I am trying to add some perspective to this article by discussing the controversial Maine Caucus and the allegations of voter fraud against the campaign. In this state Romney was declared the winner intially, however there were heavy allegations of voter fraud on the part of the state GOP (misreporting results, canceling voting, etc.) and ultimatly Ron Paul ended up winning the pluarality of delegates. There have been other documented cases of fraud and heavy handed tactics used by Romney supporters in Arizona, Oklahoma, Lousinana, and Missouri to ensure their canidate got the nomination but none of that is covered here, even though I have cited my sources, all my edits get deleted. Please respect the facts and do not delete edits that are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbowen81 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Pbowen, thanks for participating! However, there are a few problems with the edits you have suggested. The edit you suggested for the Maine vote needs a stronger source. The source you selected appears to be an opinion-based blog ("politics, opinion, humor"), which is the kind of source, for this type of content, that is usually not the best for stating the facts of news events in the Misplaced Pages narrative voice. Your source also doesn't use the term "fraud" or seem to directly imply fraud, yet the sentence you proposed states in the Misplaced Pages narrative voice that there were "documented cases of voter fraud by the Maine GOP." If you think the article should state that there was voter fraud, you need a reliable source that backs up that assertion. You may find it helpful to review Misplaced Pages's guidelines on reliable sources (WP:RS). Dezastru (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Couple problems with that. This is the Mitt Romney Presidential campaign page which is specifically for that purpose. Now Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee so it's irrelevant in my opinion to argue about states that won't change the results of Mitt Romney's presumptive nomineeship (1,489 soft - 1,369 hard). At the Republican Convention which is later this summer, we don't know how each delegates will vote so that's where the results will matter. Ron Paul fans have been trying to interject Rule 38 in this article although it has no relevancy to the article nor will it matter. The delegates that won their spots are the same number as Romney's hard numbers since he hand-picked those delegates himself who are hardcore Romney supporters. The soft number on the other hand which there are 120 delegates that are up in the air and they may vote however they want. Second, the article that Dezastru pointed out does not claim fraud especially in an opinion piece where the editor is free to suggest it. Yes, there were problems but still irrelevant to this article. Since you want to claim voter fraud, you have to keep a NPOV which is not happening in this case. Now this is discussed in great details on this page Maine Republican caucuses, 2012 so I'm not seeing why it should be added here too. ViriiK (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Physics jokes

The section I made summarized here:

From March to July the media satirized Romney through various physics jokes. These include Josh Marshall's Schrödinger's Romney, The New York Times's Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney, and Daily Kos's Mitt's Boson, (each lampooning Schrödinger's cat, the uncertainty principle, and Higgs boson respectively). The jokes are satirically used as physics explanations for Romney's perceived flip-flopping or lying on numerous issues.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, why exactly do you want to attack a living person here on WP? Arzel (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Why are you assuming jokes/attack? Other see this as the efforts to understand the reality on the ground of more robust quantum predicate where superposition is allowed. The right question (to reject/validate quantum hipothessis) will be if, or what, statistic loop by flops. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
How are the jokes an attack on a living person? They are a clear media issue just like the Etch-A-Sketch comments which I don't see as attacks either. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
How are these jokes really relavent to anything. The Media sections seems to be open season on Romney during this election time. Viewmont Viking (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Bain_Capital

Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Bain_Capital is treated as a media issue, not with respect to the pros or cons of Romney's involvement there. It is a subsection under Media issues. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed section on Bain Capital SEC filings etc. Yes there are a lot of "reliable" sources, yet we do not know were this is going, let us wait. Also there is talk about removing the Media section as is seems to be code for attack Romney. Viewmont Viking (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but removal of significant information requires a reason. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree and I mentioned a reason, we do not know how this will play out yet. We do not have a Due Date. In addition the quote by the Obama advisor that has been mentioned would go better on President Barack Obama's 2012 Campaign page. In addition NPOV issues can be mentioned. I am fine with what Wasted Time mentioned in Romney's main page..."his seperation from Bain was complete in 2002" Since that is all we really know right now. In addition the media section seems to be an attack Romney section. Should be removed entirely. I will not revert your change again, however I strongly disagree with the inclusion and the specific wording. Viewmont Viking (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Please read it more carefully; it is much more balanced than you appear to think it is. It is definitely not an attack on Romney. As to "Since that is all we really know right now." the fact checker at The Washington Post has looked into it; his conclusions are in the section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I read it carefully, and it was quite negative. There is no need to include the Obama attack on Romney, and it was worded in such a way that is seems like Romney is guilty of something until the very end. Arzel (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Campaign_issues

I have started Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Campaign_issues which is the place for information about emerging issues in the campaign with Obama. Some of the subsections in the Media issues section might be moved to Campaign issues, but not matters that were ginned up by the media such as the SEC reports. I realize the distinction I'm trying to make may not stick as these matters are ambiguous; a media matter is, or may become, a campaign issue. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Smells a bit ORish. Isn't the entire campaign about issues? Hcobb (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If it was, I suppose a few could be included in the article without dispute. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional issues

From listening to C-Span and other TV other issues seem to be repealing Obamacare, the stagnant economy caused by Obama's failure, "job creators" faced with uncertainty, excessive regulation, and too high taxes. What are Romney's issues or issues which impact Romney's campaign which might be included in this article as major campaign issues? I would exclude ephemeral issues such as singing or dressage, although we might collect those in a section. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Good start. Cwobeel (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying Romney has refused to release tax returns is not POV

Several editors have been objecting to the use of the term refuse in describing Romney's resistance — in the face of numerous appeals from across the political spectrum — to release more than two years of tax returns. One editor feels that "refuse" needed to be "softened" a bit. Why not let the text of the article reflect what most sources are saying?


“As Democrats ramp up attacks on presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for his overseas financial investments and refusal to release more of his tax returns, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican and a surrogate for Mr. Romney, defended the former Massachusetts governor Tuesday and said he's done everything in compliance with the law."
Washington Times July 10, 2012
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jul/10/utahs-rep-chaffetz-romneys-been-very-successful-ge/

“Romney is drawing a line in the sand and refusing calls to reveal more of his tax records. He's dead set against releasing more than two years worth of returns, insisting today he won't give Democrats more material to -- quote -- "make a mountain out of and distort."”
Wolf Blitzer, CNN July 16, 2012
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1207/16/sitroom.01.html

“Mitt Romney Refuses to Release 2009 Tax Returns”
Bloomberg TV “Lunch Money” July 19. 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/mitt-romney-refuses-to-release-tax-returns-XOaM3GKlRgqwwAV1uNOsEw.html

“He has refused to release multiple years of returns, as has been the habit of presidential nominees for decades.”
Dallas Morning News July 18, 2012

“Romney Digs in, Refuses to Release More Tax Returns”
National Journal July 12, 2012
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-digs-in-refuses-to-release-more-tax-returns-20120717

“Romney said he would not give in to mounting attacks over his refusal to release his tax returns prior to 2010, including calls from some Republican allies to disclose the records and end the controversy.”
Reuters July 18, 2012
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/17/us-usa-campaign-idINBRE86G10D20120717

“And Romney's refusal to allow the world to deeply peer into his personal finances is also not a new development.”
CBS News July 16, 2012
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57473424/outrage-over-tax-returns-a-replay-of-past-campaigns/

“Mitt Romney's wife is reinforcing her husband's refusal to make public more of his of tax returns, saying "we've given all you people need to know" about the family's finances.”
Associated Press July 19, 2012
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/19/romney-wife-says-voters-will-fire-coach/

“Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is defending Mitt Romney's refusal to release more of his income tax returns, arguing ‘there is no claim or no credible indication’ he's done anything wrong.”
Associated Press July 18, 2012
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/pawlenty-mitt-romney-has-paid-lot-taxes/

“Tax is an awkward issue for Romney, who is on the defensive over his refusal to release his tax records.”
The Guardian July 9, 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/09/obama-romney-middle-class-tax-cuts

“Conservative commentators said Mr Romney refusal to release more than two years of tax returns — 2010 and 2011 — was poisoning the campaign.”
The Telegraph July 15, 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mitt-romney/9401718/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romney-under-mounting-pressure-to-release-tax-returns.html

“Romney has refused to release pre-2010 tax returns.”
AFP July 3, 2012
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jsfJotkl7FlX9bD6R4GfIj6rT5bQ?docId=CNG.b427100ac45d92b76358ffa0029eb52a.841

“Running mates are typically named shortly before the party nominating convention, but some believe Romney is likely to name his sooner, perhaps even as early as this week, to deflect attention from ongoing Democratic attacks over his tenure as chief of Bain Capital, a private equity firm, or his refusal to release more than two years of tax returns.”
Chicago Tribune July 17, 2012
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-la-pn-romney-names-vice-presidential-aides-amid-running-mate-speculation-20120717,0,4293429.story

“But that answer has not satisfied a growing number of Republicans who have said Mr. Romney’s refusal threatens to do him lasting political damage as he nears the final stage of the presidential campaign.”
New York Times July 18, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/politics/romney-steadfast-against-release-of-more-tax-returns.html

“Romney has released his 2010 return and 2011 estimate, but has thus far refused to release earlier years.”
USA Today July 17, 2012 http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/new-ads-allege-romney-is-hiding-something-in-tax-returns/1

"Democrats have accused the GOP candidate of trying to distract from other controversies -- namely his refusal to release more than two years' worth of tax returns, and questions about when he left private equity firm Bain Capital."
Fox News July 19, 2012
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/19/romney-hammers-didnt-build-that-in-new-web-ad/

"Romney Refuses to Release More Tax Returns"
"WASHINGTON . Mitt Romney remained defiant Tuesday in the face of relentless pressure to release more of his tax returns as his campaign dropped further hints he'd soon be unveiling the long-awaited identity of his running mate."
Financial Post July 18, 2012
http://www.financialpost.com/todays-paper/Romney+refuses+release+more+returns/6949885/story.html Dezastru (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Journalists write things in ways that do not necessarily reflect ordinary use of language, and the public is trained to translate according to context. For instance, who says "slayed" or "slain"? Nobody, but journalists use those words incessantly. "Declined" is every bit as accurate as "refused", empirically, and it fits the situation better for the reasons given in some of the recent edit summaries. So what's wrong with "declined"? Belchfire (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Romney is not required to release any personal information whatever other than proving he is a citizen of a certain age, and alive. Decline is much better. If release was required refuse might be appropriate. Any American who follows politics probably has strong opinions about Romney and his opponent, but we should avoid expressing them in this context. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Better yet, don't even add the adverb. Simply state that he has not released any additional tax returns. It removes all of the POV pushing and is completely factual. Now if Romney says "I refuse to...." then that is a different story and we can simply quote him on it, but we should not allow reporters to put words into his mouth, or WP editors to do so either. Arzel (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"'Declined' is every bit as accurate as 'refused', empirically" — if that is so, then Arzel won't have any problem with us using the term refuse. Right? Dezastru (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The neutral way to present this is that Romney released two years of returns, and that he refused calls to release additional years from member of both parties. Cwobeel (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The neutral way to present is that Romney released two years of returns, and when called to release additional years stated that he has released all the financial information that is required. All of this "refused" business is nothing more than a cannard to imply that he is not abiding by some rule. Arzel (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Arzel that "refused" probably isn't the best choice of words here and that the issue should be written about as neutrally as possible. We don't have mentions of Barack Obama "refusing" to release his college transcripts, do we? While perhaps desirable, there's no requirement that such documents be released. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
"The neutral way to present this is that Romney released two years of returns, and that he refused calls to release additional years from member of both parties." This is a reasonable compromise that remains faithful to most of the sources. Dezastru (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is still not a consensus for this wording. 72Dino (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
"Refused" is partisan language. Headlines of newspapers and other reliable sources are designed to attract attention and readership, an encyclopedia does not cite a headline as a reason to include or exclude specific text; we as editors determine that as guided by WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
"Refused" is no longer there. Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I am aware of that. I am arguing against re-inclusion of the term, as proposed by Dezastru above. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
"'Refused' is partisan language. Headlines of newspapers and other reliable sources are designed to attract attention and readership, an encyclopedia does not cite a headline as a reason to include or exclude specific text" — Only a handful of the sources cited above are from headlines. Many print (and web) sources have used the term refuse in the body of the text of the articles, so the argument that refuse is only being used in sources in order to draw attention to articles and, as a result, it is journalistic jargon that is needlessly partisan is unsupported. Dezastru (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ann Romney also refuses and says to an anchor, "You have all you need about our lifestyle and taxes." It is a non-issue. Rush Limbaugh and others do not want them to cave, and if they do, it will in no-way end the ankle-biting. Ann Romney is half of the equation. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Being the 'darling' of distractors and the other side is one way McCain lost for Republicans. It is a non-issue. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Add?

Why would this belong in his campaign page? This would be better put if it was in the 2012 Republican National Convention page. ViriiK (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
A new one on me. Let's see if it becomes a campaign issue. No reasonable person can accurately predict. Who would have thought a leave of absence was? User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
This clearly a WP:NOT#NEWS issue, not to mention a ton of speculation and WP:CRYSTAL. Arzel (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I've seen also that George W. Bush will not be speaking at convention. Saw it on The Blaze. I consider it not important, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Was/is W invited? 99.181.143.157 (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Source used

The WaPo article used as a source does not say anything about "Romney did leave Bain in 1999". read the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-and-his-departure-from-bain/2012/07/12/gJQAASzUfW_blog.html It says: "If Romney left Bain in February 1999, when he departed to run the Olympics, then a number of business deals that went sour (such as KB Toys) can’t be counted as part of Romney’s tenure. If he actually left in 2002, as the Obama campaign alleges, then those deals are fair game." which is very different. This is a blogger writing speculatively, not making an assertion of fact. Cwobeel (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is also from the source. "And after reviewing evidence cited by the Obama campaign, we reaffirm our conclusion that Romney left the helm of Bain Capital when he took a leave of absence in 1999 to run the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics – as he has said repeatedly — and never returned to active management." It could probably be sourced directly to FactChecker.org, but to say it was not said is not true. Arzel (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
read again. That quote is not from the WaPo article, but rather, the opinion of FactCheck.org. Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to use FactCheck as a source, you can do so, but also add other sources that challenge that statement from other sources for balance. Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Also review this article from Fortune (magazine) which was referred to in the WaPo article. 72Dino (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The two newest reviews of the situation make it clear that he left in 1999 and the WaPo fact checker does not dispute that. That is all that is needed Arzel (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not clear at all. As Cwobeel explained, we would need to balance such a claim against the alternatives. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, no. I've seen no credible evidence that contradicts Factcheck's take on the situation. Indeed, everything I've seen to the contrary is pretty obviously specious and politically motivated, and there is no need for imaginary "balance" merely to appease the political comfort level of certain editors. I endorse the edit made in this diff. Belchfire (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
FactCheck.org has reviewed it twice, both times making the same conclusion. They are a reliable source. The WaPo fact checker is already being used for a seperate statement. We don't need to present other sources that are trying to claim Romney is a liar when such a preponderance of sources clearly state that Romney had nothing to do with Bain after 1999. I know you don't like it, but that is not a valid reason. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore this is already a response to balance out the false claim by the Obama campaign and others. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

I think this article has greatly minimized the criticisms of Romney that are central to the campaign. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the controversy surrounding Bain is that Bain has profited heavily from offshoring US jobs.

There is just a passing mention of his refusal to release tax returns and keeping of offshore investments and bank accounts. These should be expanded with more details. We should cover both the positives and the negatives for each candidate. Jehochman 14:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I see a section called "Campaign issues", which gives simple factual statements regarding what some consider to be...wait for it...campaign issues. We're not here to be a platform for an expansive view on the anti-Romney rhetoric out there. There is much potential hay to make regarding Barack Obama's political positions this fall as well, but I don't even see a similar "Campaign issues" section at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Why is that? Tarc (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I just started one while you were typing your comment. Both sections need to be expanded. Romney's section is slanted too "pro". Obama's section is completely absent. Both need work. We need to provide a good level of detail about the issues being addressed by both campaigns. What is the campaign saying, and what are the campaigns opponents saying? The reader cannot understand the campaign without that information. Jehochman 14:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
You can discuss that issue on that the talk of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. I am not interested in Obama, I am interested in this article Cwobeel (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I would not consider Salon.com a neutral site by their own admission. I agree this article needs a lot of work. I love how you added the NPOV Dispute Tag to to both Mitt Romney's Bio and this article. however you are saying that Barack Obama presidential campaign should also have pros and cons and it needs work, but you didn't at a NPOV Dispute to Barack Obama Presidential campaing, 2012? Viewmont Viking (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is all favorable coverage. The Obama article is just completely missing any coverage of the issues. This one is slanted. That one is totally incomplete. I tagged it as needing expansion. You'd do well to focus on the article instead of me. Jehochman 16:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you'll find Obama supporters think the article is too favorable and that Romney supporters think is too unfavorable. So it's probably about where it should be. 72Dino (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I have worked with others to make changes in this article that I feel have made it better. The lede section is a good example. I do not see how you are saying that the article is all favorable coverage. This article does cover a lot of whay you are saying is not covered, the Etch a Sketch comment which I feel is Not notable is included, Romney's time at bain and the dispute about when he left is covered, Romney declining to release his taxes is covered. Again I think this article still needs a lot of work. I don't se it as completely "pro" Romney however. Viewmont Viking (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
What's not mentioned in the Bain controversy is that Romney was certified as an officer in SEC filings, but now claims that he wasn't. During this time Bain was active in outsourcing US jobs to other countries. This is a central issue which is used against his candidacy and should be explained.
Also not mentioned anywhere is that Romney have faced repeated criticism for maintaining his money in offshore tax havens. He has had difficulty explaining why he did that, which has become an issue that is subject to heavy negative campaigning. It is not possible for a reader to understand the campaign unless both positive and negative campaign issues are included in the article. This should be done for both candidates. Say how the candidate has positioned themselves ("low taxes", "free enterprise") and how they are being labelled by the opposition ("tax dodger", "job outsourcer"). Jehochman 19:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It's probably not mentioned because editors here - as a group - don't see it as worth mentioning. Belchfire (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Jehochman makes a valid arguement, wikipedia has policy against labeling WP:Label So let's follow that policy Algonquin7 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been 4 days and no one's discussed any particular bias still in the article. I propose the tag be removed. If there's a lack of information on a subject, that isn't a bias but perhaps could justify a needs expansion label. Given the highly politicized nature of the article, there will always be conflicts, but if their isn't a blatant bias that can be pointed out the tag needs removed or replaced.Naapple (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess editors have been distracted by other matters. Rather than focus on the tags, I'd like to return our attention to the actual issue. Jehochman brought up some good points, but we never moved forward into action. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The tags are meant to be temporary. If it's no longer a current issue, then it should be removed. Indeed let's work on the article. Naapple (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Fine by me. What would you like to do first? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
As suggested here, the Bain Capital section needs expansion. While it seems to be pretty well balanced and thoroughly referenced, it hardly does the topic justice given both it's predominance in the media, and referenced as both a pro or con by both campaigns . Naapple (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Would you like to suggest specific material (or just add it to the article)? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympic comments

Romney's comments regarding the olympics should be added to the campaign issues section, it's notable enough that David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson have weighed in on the issue.

http://www.politico.com/arena/ http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/boris-johnson-whacks-romney-130225.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americium-con (talk • contribs) 20:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wp is not a newspaper. Arzel (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


It's not much of a source or a very notable issue related to the Romney campaign just Romney himself Algonquin7 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There are other sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, reporting on this as well: http://stream.wsj.com/story/campaign-2012-continuous-coverage/SS-2-9156/ Cwobeel (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
"By 5 p.m. ET, the British press was having a field day. The center-left newspaper the Guardian led their website with the headline, "Mitt Romney's Olympics blunder stuns No 10 and hands gift to Obama." Referring to Romney's "disconcerting" comment, the Guardian quoted a senior Whitehall source, who said, "What a total shocker. We are speechless." The Guardian also ran a sidebar entitled, "Oh, Mitt: those Romney gaffes in full." The article dissected Romney's gaffes and rated them all on a scale of one to 10. The "disconcerting" comment received a rating of eight on the gaffe scale. "Take that, Romney! Now get that horse out of my sight," the Guardian wrote in the blog post, in reference to Ann Romney's horse, Rafalca, which will compete in the Olympics. The Telegraph, a traditionalist, center-right paper, ran commentary from foreign correspondent Alex Spillius under the headline "Romney doesn't like us? We shouldn't care." The subheadline of Spillius' story read, "Mitt Romney is perhaps the only politician who could start a trip that was supposed to be a charm offensive by being utterly devoid of charm and mildly offensive." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57481007-503544/brit-papers-blast-mitt-romney/ This is indeed notable enough to add. Cwobeel (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How about his advisors "Anglo-Saxon" comments? The Romney campaign so far has not asked for the comments to be retracted?Americium-con (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that his diplomatic faux pas belong in the article, just so long as we don't give them too much space just because they're recent. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
WP is not a newspaper, and nor should it try to be. If it is a major issue it will be a week from now. I suggest that editors familiarlize themselves with WP:RECENT and WP:NOT#NEWS Arzel (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
International trips of presidential candidates are important for the campaign. The fact that Romney is getting rebuked by British political leaders is clearly significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Possibly so, but there is no deadline and we have Wikinews for current events. This kind of crap always results in pointless edit wars as the story develops, what the hell is the point in trying to jam it all into the main article until some historical context is developed? It is quite interesting though. Romney simply repeats what has been in the London press regarding problems with the olympics for the past few weeks and suddenly it is a diplomatic gaffe? It is like an insane person running around saying "I am insane! I am insane!" and then asking them, "Are you insane?" and then having them get pissed off at you for not only stating the obvious, but repeating their own comments. Arzel (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The 2012 campaign is happening right now, so it's not a historical event, except in the sense that history is being made even as we speak. If we were writing about something a decade ago, we could tell whether it withstood the test of time. For events which are current, this is meaningless. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't even make sense. You completely validate my argument of recenticsm and WP not being a newspaper and then try to use those policies as a reason why it should be included as it is happening? Arzel (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
@Arzel. You need to drop that line of reasoning. This is about Romney's perception on the world stage, and highly significant. Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
What part of WP is not a newspaper do you two not understand? Arzel (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that we do understand: we simply don't agree. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Well it is nice to know that you simply don't agree with WP policies. Arzel (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
You're mistaken about WP policies in the first place. In any case, the policies exist only in terms of our consensus interpretation, and the consensus on Mitt Romney is that the material on the Olympics at least belongs in this article, so I'm putting it back. Feel free to violate WP policies by edit-warring, ok? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. BLP policies, for example, cannot be trumped by concensus. Arzel (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, your point has been made. No need for repetition. Can we agree that Romney's Olympic gaffe is significant enough for this campaign page (as opposed to his bio page) given: 1.)the extensive news coverage, 2.)the fact that both the UK Prime Minister and the Mayor of London's responded and, 3.)the fact that the trip itself had been framed by the Romney campaign as significant (citation needed, of course)? Perhaps the topic title can be renamed to "2012 Europe trip" in the future. I'm sure there will be some "newspaper" worthy coverage of Romney's next stop in Israel. CrabCrawling (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. Why is that so hard to understand? Wikinews is for current events. It has been less than two days for this issue. Arzel (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
That I'd agree with. It seems to me there is consensus that this belongs now (no need to "wait a week" to reassess). Historical context isn't needed, just a simple statement of what happened with minimal detail and no editorializing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Romney's comments should not be characterized as a gaffe, Piers Morgan defended Romney's comments as speaking the "truth," .Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Piers Morgan doesn't trump everybody else. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Romney was referring to British criticism of their own Olympic plans, so Piers Morgan's defense the Romney was speaking the truth is relevant. Romney didn't invent the criticism, it already existed. The comments should not be characterized as original to Romney. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed they shouldn't, and I don't think anyone is saying Romney is the first to do so. That doesn't diminish the fact that a U.S. presidential candidate insulting (or saying something that is being perceived as insulting) the British is noteworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
This item sticks out like a sore thumb and it looks like a lemonade stand in the middle of a Safeway parking lot. It needs to come out because WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:RECENT, and WP:WEIGHT, and the claim that there is a consensus is phony, at best. Trying to claim consensus when there is an even split is WP:TENDENTOUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:DISRUPTIVE. Belchfire 16:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Overall, the London Olympic tour is helping Romney, the comments may have been coordinated with the Prime Minister to increase attention on Romney's visit, allow for some news coverage, it allowed Romney to upstage Obama from getting attention on security issues since there was increased concerns over Olympic security leading up to Romney's visit with Obama officials attempting to claim some credit . So it was really a brilliant maneuver by Romney. The CNN Piers Morgan London interview with Romney is very strong and its getting lots of attention too, its very Presidential, and among the best interviews Piers Morgan has ever done. The positives of Romney's London Olympic visit are highly relevant and should be given weight.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Consensus does not require unanimity, and throwing in a bunch of random policies without stating why they're applicable doesn't help. Romney is taking heat for his comments, in spite of any legitimate security concerns. As Chris Wallace said this morning, "If you ask me if that suit makes you look fat, I'm not going to tell that it does, even if it does." I don't quite see how you're trying to spin this as "really a brilliant maneuver by Romney". Saying "the comments may have been coordinated with the Prime Minister to increase attention on Romney's visit" is simply silly; in addition to having no proof for your suggestion, Romney's trip was getting a lot of press before he opened his mouth about the Olympics. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, you seem to not understand WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikinews is for current events. WP is not for current events, if it were there would be no need for Wikinews. Why is this such a difficult concept for so many to understand? If this is notable it will stand the test of time, it is currently just a news blip. Anyone, please explain why this event trumps WP:NOT#NEWS. Arzel (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Media spin is not encyclopedic. Taking heat from media is opinion and irrelevant. Of course, we don't need unanimity to remove the comments regarding the silly Etch-a-sketch or dog incident spin, or the Olympic spin inserted into the article either. We may as well remove all the media spin comments for the Etch a sketch, the dog incident, and the Olympic comments. Arzel's point is well taken. The consensus appears to be for removal comments altogther. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
If a matter receives substantial coverage in the media it is notable and belongs in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily, media coverage in this regard appears to be giving WP:Undue weight to the opponents in political campaign and violate neutrality WP:NPOV. Also, Misplaced Pages is not a newpaper. So the consenus for removal is sound. Arzel or another editor is within rights to remove the whole section regarding the dog, the etch-a-sketch, and the Olympic comments. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, we can't keep trying to sweep clean all possible criticism. Misplaced Pages is expected to be neutral. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER in effect here. Too soon for this addition. And I don't see how this tidbit is of lasting historical significance in any event. In 3 months will anyone really care? No. Let's exclude.– Lionel 06:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Please tell me what APPL stock will be trading at in 3 months, since you claim to have a crystal ball. When your prediction is accurate to the penny, I'll believe your claim and let you remove everything about the Olympics. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you realize that your argument is the logic used to keep recent events out of articles? WP articles are built by summarizing events which have historical weight, it is not to put every piece of crap in the news into the article and then come back 3 months later to see if it is still notable at that time. Your argument is the exact reason why this does not belong. Arzel (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Except that it doesn't work that way. If something seems important, we include it. If we find out later that it turned out not to be important, we can always remove it. Now, if we went in the opposite direction, then "Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012" would be empty until at least 2013. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
That is not how WP works. I am not sure where you are getting your information. Arzel (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think he cares about that. ViriiK (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you should be commenting about other editors, especially negatively, when our job is to talk about the articles. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
You don't think which proves my point so but right now I agree with the other editors that this is WP:NOTNEWS. You're still insisting on including this. ViriiK (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
See, saying I don't think is simply a personal attack, and that invalidates the notion that you're trying to work constructively with me to improve this article. I suppose you should retract and apologize. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
No. ViriiK (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I said you should retract and apologize. Based on prior behavior, I don't expect you to. That would be too productive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Personal attack, huh? Now that's irony. What would I have to apologize for? I'm not going to apologize to a disruptive editor. End of discussion. Now do you have something to contribute as to why a WP:NOTNEWS piece should be included into this article? ViriiK (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is as disruptive editing does. I've explained why this policy does not support your attempt to exclude this topic, but you seem unresponsive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess we're done with this topic. It seems to me that the consensus is that this won't be included? I'm all-ears. ViriiK (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you understand how consensus works. It's not a vote and it can never override hard and fast rules such as WP:NPOV or WP:RS. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
You just stated above; "You're mistaken about WP policies in the first place. In any case, the policies exist only in terms of our consensus interpretation, and the consensus on Mitt Romney is that the material on the Olympics at least belongs in this article, so I'm putting it back. Feel free to violate WP policies by edit-warring, ok? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)" Are you actually the same person, or do you simply change your views to fit your current line of argument? I don't think you understand any WP policies, but then you are a relatively new user and may not have had the chance to read them all. Arzel (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Where's the vote? I simply said no as well as plenty of other users. The impression is that there is no consensus to include but rather a consensus to omit. And what does WP:NPOV or WP:RS have to do with this? This is simply a WP:NOTNEWS issue and whether this does not violate that policy to include this. ViriiK (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
We disagree. Fortunately, your agreement is not required. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Fortunately for me, it doesn't work that way. It's a nice thought. Anyways there is a clear consensus by myself and 3 other editors not to include under the rules of WP:NOTNEWS. ViriiK (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
For the reasons I've already explained, you're mistaken. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Which is what? Cite exactly what you're talking about that we will be including this WP:NOTNEWS into the article and why. ViriiK (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This is beyond news. In fact these are old news already. But the fact remains that the Prime Minister of the UK, and the Major of London reacted negatively to Romney's first visit to the UK as presumptive nominee is worthy of inclusion. Cwobeel (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is arrived at by balancing of rational views. Repeating WP:NOTNEWS endlessly is not a valid argument in light of our well-known practice of regularly using information from daily newspapers in our articles, and as in the instance of 2012 Aurora shooting creating articles about major news items. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Some aspect of Misplaced Pages:NOTNEWSPAPER#NEWSPAPER which is being violated needs to be cited before the slogan WP:NOTNEWS applies. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Fred, thanks for more clearly saying what I was trying to. It's not clear how WP:NOTNEWS applies except as a vague slogan. Like you, I'd very much like to see what specific parts would be violated. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It is unbelievable what is happening here. There are an overwhelming number of sources that describe the massive gaffe Romney made, and the text reads as if this was a balanced view in which he was also praised? Gimme a break. Cwobeel (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What you're saying seems consistent with what I've been reading about sources. Turns out we don't need to report on fringe sources, and we only need to give minor sources a minor place. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
It certainly has gotten ugly here. Here's my two cents, and then some: Romney's trip abroad was done as part of his 2012 Presidential campaign strategy, which is continuing at this very moment. It was his 'trip abroad' tour. It wasn't a weekend getaway. He had Europe outraged over his comments and behavior. He was rebuked by the Prime Minister and the mayor of London. A quick note: both Cameron and Boris Johnson are in political alignment with Romney. Romney's remarks made international headlines. It is majorly significant, since it effects his Presidential campaign. The headlines are brutal, and they're questioning, among other things, how this man could ever be President of the United States. These comments preceded the 2012 London Olympics, the largest international event in existence. Every country represented learned of his remarks. Said remarks extended to the players' countries as well. Romney's touted his time in office overseeing the Salt Lake City Olympic games. The Prime Minister responded that it was easy to oversee the Olympics in a place that was in the 'middle of nowhere.' Anyone who can't see this as an international scandal, is, I'm sorry, willfully ignorant. His comments were reiterated by public officials to the Olympic crowd. Don't forget the controversy surrounding comments regarding MI6. This was in every major news publication. His foreign tour has been an international disaster. This was all in an effort to boost his foreign relations image. Barack Obama made the same trip abroad as part of his campaign tour back in 2008. Romney is bringing his own camera crew and the press to cover his trip. This IS for his Presidential campaign. Partyclams (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's important, so we can't just ignore it or relegate it to some side article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Merging Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012 into this article

Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012 is a bunch of speculation with little encyclopedic value, any thoughts regarding severely reducing it and merging it into a small section here? --Wingtipvorte PTT ∅ 16:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the other article should just be dumped. In the end, it will all be reduced to one sentence anyway. -- Avanu (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I in partial agreement with Avanu. Without even looking at the article, I'd bet $20 it's blatant WP:NOT#NEWS material, and loaded with WP:CRYSTAL. But I'm not sure that it should be totally dumped. There is some idiosyncratic niche historical value in keeping a record of who was in the running. That's not to say that anybody will be interesting in creating a good article on the subject, however, once the conventions are behind us. Belchfire-TALK 07:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I've had this on my watch list and honestly I don't think it should be bothered with anymore as a separate page so I'm for dumping it. "Ohh a new person has appeared and his/her name is so-so. Is this person being groomed to be (Presumptive Nominee)'s Vice President?" Was there a similar page back for the 2008 Democratic and Republican Vice Presidential candidates? So I think it's too big of a burden to keep catching up on who is a potential candidate. ViriiK (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Point taken. The sheer volume of speculation seems likely to be staggering for an editor to sort through, and there is great difficulty separating credible suggestions from wild-ass guesses. OK, I'm convinced that the article has little value (again, without looking at it). Perhaps there could be a section concerning the front-runners in the article for whoever turns out to be the candidate, or maybe in the article for the convention. Belchfire-TALK 08:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
My thoughts are that this article should have a small section for it once the VP is announced. Then we can add the names of some of the other possibilities. Maybe the other article should be turned into a list, but I agree that it is simply just too big for anyone to bother doing anything to/with it. --Wingtipvorte PTT ∅ 15:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
No merging. Since there is a series of articles from other years on the Vice Presidential choices it should not be merged. Also, this article is already long enough and likely to get even longer for the general election. Thus, there is no need to merge.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Given that any day now the VP could be announced, it seems like a lot of trouble for nothing. I feel like it would be easier just to let it be for now than trying to merge it. It's just gonna get archived anyway. If someone wants to make the effort of merging it, though, I won't complain. Naapple (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Romney's trip

Romney's remarks in Israel about the Palestinians are notable, although they are currently removed. Let's wait and see if he makes headlines in Poland and then sum up his trip. I understand from the polls that his adoption of right-wing Israeli views is helping his poll numbers with American Jews; he's moved into over 30% support. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"Romney Trip Raises Sparks at a 2nd Stop" User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd call that a reliable source. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

POV

In a rather extreme form of POV-pushing, the article claims that "Romney was both praised and criticized by media" for his comments in London. While I am sure both praise and criticism can be found if searching the media worldwide, the fact of the matter is the comments were almost universally criticized and seen as quite a major gaffe. By trying to paint the picture of equal praise and criticism and gloss over the issue, the article pushes a strong POV that is disconnected from the actual facts.Jeppiz (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I must agree. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It should probably be reworded. I think editors are holding off until the trip is complete. Naapple (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I took a stab at it now, just cutting off the fringe elements. When the whole world is criticizing you and one contrary voice defends you, the latter should not be put on equal terms, according to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. But I'm totally fine with revisiting the issue after this is over and we have more perspective. Who knows, maybe he'll remove his foot from his mouth and put a good spin on this. Whatever happens, we should report it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't include the praised by the media. I agree that is fringe. However we should still include the fact that Romney was not the first nor the last to mention Distressing issues with Security. (And it is not just Fringe).
http://espn.go.com/olympics/summer/2012/story/_/id/8180706/uk-knew-olympic-security-problems-june-puts-1200-troops-standby
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303933704577532544284328650.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-15/world/world_europe_uk-olympics-security_1_g4s-nick-buckles-security-contractor
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2180527/Olympic-Security-2012-India-demands-Games-security-probe-imposter-joins-team-Opening-Ceremony.html?ITO=1490
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/olympics2_07-18.html
Really just Fringe mentioning it? Viewmont Viking (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the citations. They clearly show that others have expressed their own concerns. Did any of these sources explicitly equate Romney's concerns with the others? I'm trying very hard to avoid original synthesis by letting someone notable and reliable point out this similarity. If we can find a suitable source, I will fully back you in reinserting this mention. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The facts are that Romney was praised and criticized by the media which also defended Romney as being right.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please look at WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The lone contrarian should not be given equal weight. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas, not only did you fail to respond to my objections, you went ahead and reverted. Your behavior is unconstructive and verges on edit-warring. Worse, you added new material that violates BLP. I am going to revert your work and I'm going to invoke the rule about reverting BLP violations not counting against 3RR. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute. Labeling it as vandalism in your edit summary is not helpfull and could lead you to being blocked, just a heads up. --Mollskman (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Categories: