Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
Please put new topics at bottom of the page.
Contents |
[edit] Employment Non-Discrimination Act
I'm removing the section on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because it is uncited. Yellowdesk, why did you revert my changes? The section on Employment and Non-Discrimination is unconfirmed and has been for a while. Also, the section on Gay rights is choppy and poorly written. Please don't revert the changes again unless you say why you are doing so on the discussion page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.237.16.183 (talk • contribs) 07:43, March 14, 2007.
- Well, 169.237.16.183,
- I suggest you have the correct facts before complaining. According to this edit, another editor, Chris 73 reverted your several edits, for which you failed to provide any edit summaries explaining your activity, as shown by this history. You complain of actions that you do yourself. Neither you nor the other editor have edit summary explanations visible on the issue in question.
- -- Yellowdesk 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
Hey guys, I was just wondering...does anyone else feel that this article seems to have a not so subtle anti-Romney undertone? Jwuthe2 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you have a critique of the article or some aspect of it, it is best to put forward in some detail your suggested improvements or point out its particular failings, so there's something to talk about. You might guess that there might not be alot of agreement among various partisan editors about a number of topics on this page. It's good practice not to assume that merely putting the POV or NPOV or "Neutrality" tags on an article are sufficient to promote an effective conversation about improving some aspect of the article.
- Also, please, when you discover a broken link, mark it with a comment, and/or bring it up on the talk page so that it can be rectified by another editor, if you're not willing to do the research to see what happened to the link/source. The "subject to removal" comments at the top of the article don't mean things need to be instantly removed upon discovery of faulty links (unless libelous or defamatory). The original source for the campaign finance text and footnote you deleted was alive and well, if you were willing to look for it, and has been restored to the article. I haven't checked to see if that source, and all of the sources for this article truly support the text. Getting all of the links transformed into footnotes would help that process for any reviewing editor. -- Yellowdesk 23:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, in the tag at the top of the page, it says "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." This seems to suggest that even if something that is unsourced is not libelous, it still must be removed promptly. However, I do apologize for not citing my change on the discussion page. Jwuthe2 21:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Items in question were not unsourced, merely with a broken link, which was easily re-found, nor was item controversial. -- Yellowdesk 01:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How long should this page be?
myclob 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- As long as it needs to be, to say what should be said. If some section is too much, it can be shifted into its own page, or edited down. -- Yellowdesk 02:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
Can we add this as an external link? It has direct quotes on Romney's political views, organized alphabetica by topic.
If people think it is pro-romney, I just have this to say... They are all direct quotes, and they are all sourced. If you want to help me offer an anti-romney contrary view, I can give you the password so you can add quotes that Romney might regret... myclob 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's a real resource, but a real challenge to trace back to some published source or press release--hence suffering from its own kind of verifiabiity challenge. How would an editor, reporter or scholar know when and where the statements were made and how they made it into the media? Any chance you have the ability to cite sources for most of the hundreds of quotations you've assembled? -- Yellowdesk 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- That is a good point... All I could do is copy and paste the raw text... I wanted to back them up in a better format...Before they went away, I started copying and pasting some of them into this blog... it shows the origianl formating better, and looks a little more formal, in the format, but the blog might actully make it less formal in other ways...But I guess transparency is good... if people disagree with the content of the press release they could respond...
http://reason4romney.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html
[edit] ABSTINENCE EDUCATION
What do you guys think?
Romney supported abstinence education programs. He said, "In my service as Governor, I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventive health practice. Abstinence education gives young people the support they need in making the decision to postpone sexual activity until they are mature enough to handle the emotional, moral and financial responsibilities of parenthood. This is more than teaching kids to say no – it will help them preserve self-esteem and build character.” [1]
I don't think this is pro or anti-romney... those that agree with him will like it, those who disagree won't... it tells a lot about romney that he would say this... right now this political views section is just a lot of repeated stuff from the other sections... i think we should add more stuff like this that is not just a duplicate of the other info, and that give an insight into what type of stuff he advocates... I am starting with the "a's" and going through the alphabete... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myclob (talk • contribs) 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
- Are the original press releases still on line, or has the state of Massachusetts taken them down? It would be great to cite an official source. -- Yellowdesk 02:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- They are gone. I am glad that I backed them up... I would like to get the official press releases from his 2002 winter olympics... Romney referenced them in his book, but I have no inside contacts, and I don't know if they are online... myclob 12:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I found the original that I copied and pasted into my blog... do you think this one is better? http://reason4romney.blogspot.com/2006/08/romney-announces-award-of-abstinence.html Got to get to work
-
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was MOVE the page, per discussion below (page moved by User: DennyColt via this edit on 07:05, March 24, 2007).
Proposed move to Political positions of Mitt Romney from Political views of Mitt Romney
Here is why I propose this move:
- Speeches and statements are not enough, and an action constitutes a position.
- Romney, among other things, proposed dead-letter bills to the legislature that he never actually lobbied for, had some vetos unanimously overidden, and some executive policies immediately overturned by his successor in office. Context and information like that gives better understanding. An historical and critical analysis, relying on cited sources making such analysis is desirable for any "political positions" article.
- "Views" tends to imply that there is no history, and tends to imply that the article is in agreement with the current campaign platform. Which it is not and never will be.
- As for consistency with other "political views" articles, my belief is that they are mis-named. "Views" implies speech only, and many political positions can be seen in the actions of the subject individuals that are contrary to their words. "Views" neglects this aspect of political life, that "positions" does not. Hence being "consistent" carries little weight with me.
Comments and criticism invited. -- Yellowdesk 04:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Add your comments in the appropriate section
[edit] Discussion
A brief history:
The article started as a section called Political positions in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008 article, following a discussion at Talk:Mitt_Romney#This page lacks personal political beliefs in January 2007. It became a stand-alone article, Political views of Mitt Romney in mid-March. -- Yellowdesk 00:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Following a suggestion by Theflyer, In the interests of pulling comments in from related Political views of ..... editors, I posted notices about the discussion here about the title of Political views of Mitt Romney article on
- Talk:Mitt Romney, Talk:Governorship of Mitt Romney and Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008.
- The project pages don't seem to be very active but I put a notice at both
- And, a day later, I put a notice on all of the other "Political views of ...." talk pages, which are:
Political views of Barack Obama
Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Political views of Joe Lieberman
Political views of John Edwards
Political views of John McCain
Political views of Lyndon LaRouche
Political views of Mike Gravel
Political views of Mitt Romney
Political views of Pat Buchanan on global affairs
Political views of Rabindranath Tagore
Political views of Republican candidates, 2008
Political views of Ron Paul
Political views of Rudy Giuliani
-
- -- Yellowdesk 06:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
- Support, as the proposer. -- Yellowdesk 05:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Views seems like we are trying to read his mind. No one can know what someone else really thinks, but in politics you put out position statements as deals with your voters... I will support this if you elect me... Positions seems more formal and precise... I like it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by myclob (talk • contribs) 20 March 2007.
- Weak support. The only reason I'm not giving a full support is because of other similar articles, See. You said "Hence being "consistent" carries little weight with me. I understand where you are coming from, but consistency makes things easier to find and categorize. I do like "Political positions" better than "Political views", and if we could change the other "views" articles to "positions", that would be great. Chupper 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. I'm still skeptical that the unfiltered "Political views of Politician X" articles belong in an encyclopedia at all; seems to me that voter education is better left to the League of Women Voters. Historical and analytical descriptions of Politician X's positions, votes, speeches, etc. does seem more suitable. I don't fancy the NPOV disputes that will come from trying to do this, however. The consistency objection raised above is one that I've held to in the past also ... but realistically, it would carry more weight if there was any consistency in politicians' articles otherwise, but there isn't; I once surveyed about 1/3 of the U.S. Senators articles to see what was included in their intros, and found every variation imaginable. Such is Wikipedia. Wasted Time R 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. I was on the Project Vote Smart website and they use "Issue Positions". I prefer that title because political views at their core are really about policy and issue debates. - PoliticalJunkie 20:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I too think the word "position" is more accurate than views in this context as it better reflects the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia and reinforces the idea that entries should document positions taken by the politician in their many different roles (casting votes, proposing legislation, public statements, etc). PoliticalJunkie makes an interesting point and think I could agree with his proposal of substituting Political with Issue so it would become "Issue positions of XXXXX", which strikes me as being even more neutral than "Political positions of XXXXX" though it doesn't roll off the tongue quite as nicely. However, we also all seem to agree that consistency is a good ideal. I suggest finding an appropriate place to engage the discussion more broadly as there seems to be a fair bit of activity on the related pages and this could be an opportunity to get a reasonable number of interested editors from different POV to provide their thoughts and insights. I did a quick search of the Wikipedia namespace but didn't find a page or guideline that seems directly relevant. There might be benefit, therefore, in establishing a "politician" guideline and beginning to flesh it out from this discussion and and any others that can be found. It could even help address Wasted Time R's findings described above. I did find Wikipedia:WikiProject United States politicians, but it appears to be pretty stagnant. Theflyer 02:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I kind of hate to say this, but to me, and I have a tendency to take words literally, a person's "views" take place inside his or her head. We can not talk about them at all on WP. On the other hand we can talk about positions taken, as well as words written and spoken, votes recorded, organizations joined, money given to causes, etc. Steve Dufour 02:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
- Oppose. The proposed title seems ambiguous; "political position" could be interpreted as referring to a role served in government (e.g. governor) as well as the intended meaning. Dekimasuよ! 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think political office is the standard term that you'll find in most cases. -- Yellowdesk 00:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Abortion Section
As organized right now, I think this section is pretty confusing - the chronology makes it so. It seems to be in a "reverse order" of Romney's positions on the issue. to make it much clearer, I would like to re-order the paragraphs so that it flows logically from his past pro-choice statements, his change of opinion in 2004, and his current pro-life statements. What does everyone think?--AaronM 16:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Separation of Church and State
I'd like to see someone add a section on Romney's position regarding the Constitutional separation of Church and State. If no one else with more experience or interest will do it, I'll give it a shot. Bricology 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Environment
The first sentence in the Environment section is somewhat contradictory: "Romney supports regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through voluntary measures". Regulation and voluntary measures are two very different approaches. Especially when the topic is greenhouse emissions, those two approaches are basically the two opposite sides of the debate. If Romney primarily supports voluntary measures (as stated), he is therefore generally against regulation. I would make this change but I don't know enough about the subject to be sure which half of the sentence is correct. I suspect he is anti-regulation, since this is the most common position within his political party. Could someone who knows for sure make the change? --spiralhighway 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's actually true as written. As governor, he participated in the negotiation of a New England states compact to reduce carbon dioxide; he caused Massachusetts to not participate in the compact upon discovering there would be a cost to implementing it. See Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Environment. -- Yellowdesk 06:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
