Talk:Public image of Mitt Romney/Archive 1

Archive 1

A separate article?

IMO, this is not noteworthy enough for a stand-alone article. Mdiamante (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I believe that a speech that happened within the last month is hard to nail down as historically significant...

I disagree... peopled called for the speech this last year... it was mentioned in every article about Romney, almost... "is he going to give the speach or isn't he?"... If you do a lexus nexus, or Google search, I bet Romney's speech will be mentioned more than 75% of the articles on wikipedia...myclob (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally find it odd that the Kennedy address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, which many view as the predecessor to Romney's, doesn't have an article. It certainly is a much more notable speech. Canadianism (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So this article about politics and Mormonism is merely a nonnotable artifact of Recentism? Or was the earlier speech overlooked so far since it's not about a current event, there apparently having been no World Wide Web in 1960? Justmeherenow (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Another possibility is to keep this article, but change the title to something more general, such as "Role of religion in the life and background of Mitt Romney." Anyone object? Then more stuff could be included in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll go ahead with it then.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The page move has now been undone, without a word at this talk page. Typical.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I love the discussion you had with yourself above that lasted all of 24 hours before you made a major article change. Let's wait for the RFC to play out on the main Mitt Romney article. Turtlescrubber (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Other editors were concerned that the scope of this article is too narrow. There is absolutely no reason not to expand the scope. Zippo. Nor have you made any attempt to offer such a reason.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Because an RFC is underway concerning material related to this speech. Please stop wikilawyering. Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC

FYI, there is a Request for Comments (RfC) occurring now at the talk page of the main Mitt Romney article. See here. The subject of the RfC includes the question of whether the religion material in the main Mitt Romney article can now be reduced, given the existence of this separate article on that subject.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not what the RFC is about. That is something you just made up to advance your agenda. Please see the actual RFC heading on Mitt Romney's talk page. Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The RfC involves whether the religious content should be "be separated out into a different article." If it is separated out into a different article, without abbreviating the coverage in the main article, that will be the first time in Wikipedia history that that has ever happened.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't you ever just make an honest statement? If you look at the actual RFC it concerns multiple different solutions? What is wrong with you? Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Civility.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You never have an answer when someone points out your deceptive ways. Seriously, why come to this page and obfuscate what the actual RFC is about? How low can you stoop? Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Civility.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't even have the character to admit when you are wrong or the integrity not to continually misrepreset the situation. I wasn't surprised to learn that you are a lawyer in real life. Turtlescrubber (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave a link to the RfC before you ever mentioned it here. I also explained the pertinence of the RfC to this article rather than explaining every other aspect of the RfC. Please see WP:Civility. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Renaming this article

Does anyone have any objection to renaming reasons why we shouldn't rename this article "Religion in the life and background of Mitt Romney", aside from the objection that an RFC is underway at another article (Mitt Romney) concerning material related to the "Faith in America Speech"?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, do not try to rename this article. Give it a rest already. Turtlescrubber (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was looking more for reasons, than for orders.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a content fork. Thanks. Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)See Wikipedia guidelines:

“ Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others. Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies.

”

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

More relevant policy:

Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship. Gaming the system is an abuse of process and disruptive. Related terms are wikilawyering and pettifogging, which refer to following an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the spirit of the policy.

An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policies with bad faith, by finding within their wording, apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. In doing this, the gamester separates policies and guidelines from their rightful place as a means of documenting community consensus, and attempts to use them selectively for a personal agenda.

Sometimes gaming the system is used to make a point. Other times, it is used for edit warring, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view. In all of these, gaming the system is an improper use of policy, and forbidden. An appeal to policy which does not further the true intent and spirit of the policy is an improper use of that policy. Turtlescrubber (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the other candidate with controversy concerning his faith, Barack (with regard his Muslim/anamist background or lack thereof) has an article addressing this issue at Barack Obama media controversy. Therefore, how about the title Controversy regarding Mitt Romney's Mormonism for this one? Justmeherenow (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Having "Controversy" articles is itself very controversial. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Nevertheless, it's okay to have an article on a specific controversial topic that's too big to contain within another article, as long as it doesn't cover all controversial aspects of a subject. So, I could support the title Controversy regarding Mitt Romney's Mormonism.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The analogy with Obama is off-target, since the topic there is a dopey rumor that he's secretly of a different religion than his real one. Nobody doubts what Romney's religion is. Calling this article "Controversy regarding Mitt Romney's Mormonism" seems wrong to me, because it's not clear what is controversial (what religion he is? Mormanism itself?) and in fact most things about Romney and his religion are not controversial. I would either leave the title as it is, or change it to something like "Religion in the life of Mitt Romney". Wasted Time R (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks for the comments, in view of which I support changing the title of this article to "Religion in the life of Mitt Romney." That would broaden the scope of the article, and thus resolve the concerns expressed above by Mdiamante and Canadianism that the focus of the article on a single speech is too narrow. I don't take any position on when the article should be renamed (it might be worthwhile to await the outcome of the RfC occurring now at the main Mitt Romney article).Ferrylodge (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I say we either leave it as is or merge it into the Mitt Romney main article. The only reason you want to rename the article is to further your own goals. Turtlescrubber (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Broadening the scope of this article may possibly help to relieve the WP:Undue weight currently being given to Romney's religion in the main article, in addition to solving the problems identified above by Mdiamante and Canadianism which (in and of themselves) would justify renaming. All of these problems have been identified by others, and are not my "own goals."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the renaming of this article. And specifically, "Religion in the life of Mitt Romney" doesn't even work as a new title, as this article has very little to do with that topic. This article is primarily about a speech in which Romney tried (very unsuccessfully) to deflect attention from his Mormon religion, using the strategy of not actually saying anything substantive about Mormon beliefs or practices, as a way of whitewashing those beliefs and practices. Thus, to rename this article would be to whitewash the whitewash! This isn't what Wikipedia is about. Probably this article should simply be merged into the article about Romney's 2008 campaign. After all, as already noted, Kennedy's Catholic speech doesn't have an article. Qworty (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Kennedy Catholic speech probably would have an article were that election happening during the Wikipedia era. It seems okay to me if this article keeps its current title; the speech was the center of the Romney campaign dealing with Mormonism, and so this article can deal with the general issue with the speech at its center. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If we leave the title of the present article as-is, do you think that it would then be appropriate to deal with the general issue in a "summary" fashion in the main article? The main article presently has a rather detailed treatment of the general issue.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

After a quickish look: There are three paragraphs in the "Religious background" section of the main article. The first is reasonable biographical material, although it could probably be blended into the early sections rather than being its own section. The second is reasonable material on the campaign, that should be relocated to the campaign section; it jumps the chrono sequence where it is. The third is all about polygamy, and doesn't seem to belong at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A new admin (John Carter) recently started an RfC on this question at the Mitt Romney article, so I hope you'll copy your remarks there. Thanks WTR.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To be frank, I'm fairly certain this article can be renamed to something less wordy and convoluted. I don't have any suggestions, nor have I read more than a few of the threads above, but there couldn't be any reason to keep the title at its current state (and length). Jared (t)  20:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. What about "Mitt Romney's religion in 2008 U.S. primaries"? This is shorter: 45 instead of 80 characters, including spaces, and includes the essence of the article's subject. — Val42 (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

An editor above (Wasted Time R) suggested: "Religion in the life of Mitt Romney". That seems like a good title to me. Why limit it to the 2008 U.S. primaries?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Although that one sounds more like a book title than an article name, I would much prefer that to the current one. It makes sense to keep it broad, especially because it discusses, partly, his Mormon history. So maybe change it to that for now, and if we think up a better one, we can discuss it further. Jared (t)  01:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just read a little more above, and perhaps a good title might be "Controversy [over, of, surrounding, regarding] Mitt Romney's religion". I think that's a good title, having chosen the right preposition. Jared (t)  01:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Limiting an article to controversies is controversial. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I (preemptively? sorry) shortened it by cutting every word possible. Nonetheless probably a better one could be had? :^) --Justmeherenow (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's much better. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's the speech?

I came to this article to read the speech in full because I heard it was good, inspiring, and well received by conservatives such as Limbaugh. I never got to listen to it because I had to work that day, and I thought wikipedia would be the obvious place to find it. I found an article titled "Mitt Romney's 'Faith in America' speech" and am not finding the speech. What's the deal folks??? Ryratt (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A link to the text of the speech can be found in the Wikisource box in the article, and you will find a link to the video under External Links. Hope that helps . . . Alanraywiki (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok! I didn't understand how wikisource worked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ryratt (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Section on "Family Life"

This section appears to include original research, an off-topic embarrassing anecdote, and unusual not-so-encyclopedic prose. It is hard to understand how a story about an Irish Setter having an accident adds to the article. I have no experience editing political articles, so I won't mess with it; however, if someone with more experience could comment on what this portion has to do with the article, I would be much obliged. Rutilus (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Section on "Romney as politician"

This section contains some of the most valueless material I've seen in a while. We can take it as a given that Romney's primary rivals had some critical things to say about him, and both those statements and the endorsements from Rush and Coulter belong in Romney's campaign article, not here. The eight points from a columnist is a great big copyvio and doesn't merit inclusion even if it wasn't. And the list of endorsements in that section was an unnecessary and unwise duplicate of Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008#Endorsements. I'm removing the whole section. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree some things were excessive, but I believe that some of it is necessary because many people have criticized him as a politican and praised him. Remember, the article is about Romney's public image, and what people like Rush Limbaugh think of him is important. I will put some things back in the article.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Being criticized and praised is what politicians do. It's not very remarkable in and of itself. What Limbaugh said was mostly meaningful in the context of Romney's 2008 campaign (the least bad alternative that year for movement conservatives), not any overall admiration for him. Would Limbaugh endorse him in 2012 over Palin? Unlikely. McCain critizing Romney is really unremarkable (hello, they were running against each other). This section doesn't include anything about Romney in his 1994 Senate race, or his Governor's race or time as Governor, or his image since the presidential election. Romney raising the most amount of money than any other candidate in 2008 is a useful fact ... for his 2008 campaign article. And note that the material you've restored heavily relies on YouTube as a source, and YouTube is generally considered to not be a reliable source. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It was meaningful in his 2008 campaign, but most of the article is from the 2008 election anyway. It doesn't matter what a typical politician is seen as, how he is criticized/praised is a part of Romney's public image. Yes, Limbaugh did endorse Romney in 2008, but the point I was making is that he's looked at favorably from him and Ann Coulter. Look at Palin's public image page, which talks about what the media thinks of her and the criticisms/appraisal she's gotten. How someone is perceived is exactly what this page is about. Am I wrong?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)