Wikipedia

Talk:Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign/Archive 3

< Talk:Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign
Latest comment: 8 years ago by E.M.Gregory in topic Merger proposal
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Page protected

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

After receiving two requests, I've fully protected this article for a 3-day period. Reason being is obvious: edit warring. Please use this talk page to discuss the disputed areas so that once the protection expires, there is no further disruption caused. I realize this article "needs to be updated continuously" and I've "protected the wrong version" - however, the faster we use discussion to reach consensus the quicker the page can be unprotected. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Without endorsing the current version (which is probably "wrong" no matter who you ask), I'm glad you protected it. I was at the point where I was ready to file 3RR reports just to stop the churn. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's remember we're here to write an encyclopedia

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Please add a see also link to Mitt Romney's tax returns on section Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Tax_returns -- Kendrick7talk 02:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should we add a link to an article that was deleted per AfD simply because you disregarded the AfD and restored the article? If you have a problem with the result I suggest you do to Deletion Review before making such a bold move that will likely result in an edit war. Arzel (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Because people don't get to WP:Wikilawyer their way towards deleting content they don't like from the project, which is obviously what is going on here. -- Kendrick7talk 04:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a process which you seem unwilling to follow, your approach is anarchy. Arzel (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
No, he's right. I agreed to delete the article because I didn't want all of the tax return material to be hidden away. But when we tried to merge it back into this article, you fought tooth and nail against it, claiming the material was unimportant. I'm sorry, but this makes it very clear that your intent all along was to suppress it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't even vote on the AfD, I called it a POV fork from the beginning though here. If you would not have been so adament about over doing it to begin with we would not even be at this point to begin with. So don't get pissed at me for an outcome that is the result of your own actions. Arzel (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Fine, so don't get pissed at Kendrick7 for seeing through the ploy and doing the right thing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Kendrick's actions are unacceptable. If you have a problem with the result take it up in the proper manner. Arzel (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This isn't the place to argue for a merge. Contest the deletion if you have a problem with it. Naapple (Talk) 06:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The article was deleted, but that does not mean that the material there is not useful for this article. Unless we find a way to collaborate and find compromise, this page will remain protected forever. Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The merger of content from a deleted article is controversial and is seldom done without objection.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is simply material that was uncontroversially a part of this article before it was sucked out and hidden away in a fork. The fork is gone, so now the material must be returned. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, very little of that information was in this article. Arzel (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Article on Mitt Romney's tax returns

Latest comment: 11 years ago64 comments12 people in discussion

Material on Mitt Romney's tax returns was deleted from this article - with claims of undue weight, when the section was about 2 paragraphs long. Then it was deleted and put into an article called Mitt Romney's tax returns. This article was challenged as a POV fork, the idea being that we don't deal with different POVs by having different articles - we put the material in one article and sort it out to get NPOV. So the "fork" was deleted. The material is now getting deleted here because the "POV fork" was deleted. That's totally against the idea of deleting POV forks. The material gets deleted because there's too much of it, too little of it, because it says too much, because it says too little. The only reason nobody has given is that it's not reference in reliable sources. That's because it is referenced in multiple reliable sources (100s from the top news sources if you'd like them all included!). So do please come up with a logically consistent reason for deleting this material! Otherwise, it has to stay in. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The result from that AfD was a Delete, not Delete & Merge. Now, if you want to re-insert the entire thing, here's a good start talking about it. I've already requested the same material to be deleted off a userspace whom was storing it for the option of reinserting it in the future and my request was granted on the same basis that it was a result of a Delete. ViriiK (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
(EC)::Let me get this straight - you've requested that material from somebody else's userspace be deleted - based on what policy or guideline? And you are saying that material from any article that has been deleted can not be inserted into any other article, even if it is well referenced? If that's what you're saying, you're claiming more power on Wikipedia than anybody has ever had - more than Jimbo for example. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Because it was a copy of a delete and under G4, copies are not allowed. Read Wikipedia:UP#COPIES & under speedy delete rule G4 Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General ViriiK (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Obviously not a rule that prevents the material from being put in the article. So back to the important part - And you are saying that material from any article that has been deleted can not be inserted into any other article, even if it is well referenced? Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Sourcing isn't the issue. Belchfire -TALK 02:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
So what exactly is the issue why this material cannot be included? Well sourced, not at all fringe (mentioned in 100s of RSs). If it just comes down to "I don't like it" removing it is just bogus. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It's undue weight. You've already mentioned this. Belchfire-TALK 03:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
And how do you determine the appropriate weight? All I hear you saying is "I don't like it." I've proposed a practical method in the section above (there's been no response), which is consistent with the policy's statement on the matter "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." So we have the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, international sources such as the BBC and all the TV network news organizations (evening prime time shows and Sunday am talk shows), Business Week, New Yorker, Weekly Standard!, etc. etc. etc. Mitt Romney speaks on the issue as does his wife, John McCain and President Obama, all the former Republican candidates, governors, tax experts galore, editorial writers, op-ed writers. And if we do want to include the general public, a clear majority of them want MR to release more returns. But all I hear you say is "I don't like it." That's just not good enough - how would you determine the appropriate weight? Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. It's still undue weight. Look at that section and compare how small it is to the rest of the article. Inserting that information expands it tremendously. 2 paragraphs is more than enough. ViriiK (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
That's your basic "I don't like it" answer. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
If you have a hard time believing that, here is the result [1] where it says "The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)" ViriiK (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
This just seems like a normal course correction to me. The standalone article was clearly an improper fork, and now that the dust has settled, the case for including voluminous amounts of material in this article is substantially weaker. Two paragraphs seems about right. Belchfire-TALK 01:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Total nonsense. The material from the deleted article can by all means be re-produced here without any issues. Even if we had to start from the beginning (which we should not) this aspect of the campaign is relevant enough to be included. Even on an interview TODAY at Fox News Romney was asked a question about tax returns, and it will very likely he will be asked again at the debates. So, we ought to expand substantially that section. Cwobeel (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a difficult matter to understand here. 1. Lengthy tax return material was added to this article. 2. The tax return material was deemed to be undue weight by a consensus of editors here, and was removed. 3. Another editor took the deleted material and made a separate article on the tax return issue. 4. A consensus of editors at Articles for Deletion decided that the article was an unsuitable, biased fork of content from this article. You can't take all of that and go back to step 1 and try again. Tarc (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I have restored the portions that are relevant to this article, removing some of the speculation that may not be needed. Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The process can't trump a simple fact: the tax returns issue has been, is, and very likely continue to be a main issue in this campaign as substantially reported by the national and international media. It will be undue weight not to include it. Cwobeel (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
You've restored the portions? You literally restored all of it more the ones that the above user was trying to restore. ViriiK (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Btw, the material is already in the article, at; Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Tax returns. Tarc (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to popular opinion, you restored almost all of it Cwobell. It went from 6,304 bytes (previous user) to 19,776 bytes (yours). I wonder why that amount. It was because you tried to reinsert almost the same material which was 27,659 bytes or 28% more crap. Especially you're inserting that graph that is hard to read which was removed from the Mitt Romney article due to the fact it's a GA article which made it inappropriate for such. ViriiK (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleting a fork doesn't mean the material is garbage, it just means it doesn't belong in a fork. Where does it belong? Right here. If you disagree, you can't just say "undue" as if that's self-evident. You need to show that it's undue, and that's going to require reasons, not just preferences. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I was in the middle of fixing that when you and others starting shooting on automatic. I have now removed duplicated material, removed the speculation and the graph. All what is there is properly sourced and relevant. Cwobeel (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand how they justify edit-warring against you. It boggles the mind. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I will remind editors that returning of all that information is highly contentious. Let us discuss how much weight to give this section here rather than create an edit war which will not improve the situation. Arzel (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We should not be merging content back from an article which was deleted--and where the result was specifically not to Merge.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This page was locked last time because some editors were merging the material that was deleted. As the topic is being heavily discussed, putting deleted material back in is completely disregarding consensus and incites an edit war. Naapple (Talk) 11:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Forget about the copy or not copy from the deleted article. The content was placed here way before that article was deleted, so the point is moot. In any case, are people here saying that two sentences cover this topic sufficiently? Obviously not given the abundance of national and international sources. So, I will start again afresh, and commence adding material to that section so that it properly reflects what has been reported on the subject. When I do so, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE unless the material is not properly sourced. Cwobeel (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight

The current section suffers from undue weight. Two sentences does not represent the massive coverage this issue has triggered. In google:

  • past 24 hours: 3,540
  • past week: 60,200
  • past month: 111,000
  • Total: 67,500,000

I ask editors to help add a modicum of weight to this section to reflect what sources report on this subject. This request goes also to those editors supportive of Romney. Cwobeel (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The numbers sound great and all, but by comparison: [[2]] Naapple (Talk) 15:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
???? Snooky? Go to that article and make that case there. Cwobeel (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added a few facts and figures that are pertinent to illustrate the issue. Please help by expanding further. Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

@Arzel: Can you please let me know what is out of scope on this [3]? I found your interactions here completely out order, and disrespectful of work done in good faith. You need to stop engaging in a practice of deleting content for no other reason that you don't like it! I have posted my arguments here, so be kind and respond and debate.Cwobeel (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of scope describes it aptly. The material in this section should include limited information on how the issue affects his campaign or how his campaign has dealt with the it; not a tell-all on Romney's wealth for the past couple years. Facts and citations aren't the problem, context is. Naapple (Talk) 18:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
So, let me understand. You are saying that despite a gigantic number of sources on the subject that associate Romney's wealth and his taxes with his campaign is no sufficient context? Cwobeel (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me remind you of this, which trumps your interpretation: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" from the lead of WP:NPOV Cwobeel (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
My edit: "fairly" - check; "without bias" - check; "significant views" - check; "published by reliable sources" - check. Can you explain were did I fail in regard of policy? Cwobeel (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
If the cited material is an explanation of how it affects his campaign, or his campaign's response, then it's potentially appropriate. Just because the material is about his tax returns doesn't mean it's relevant to how it affects his campaign. This is his 2012 campaign page.
Also, every editor thinks their edits are fair and unbiased.Naapple (Talk) 19:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Out of scope" must be another term for "I don't like it." The section is on Mitt Romney's tax returns - the content of the single tax return that has been released for this campaign (or ever) is obviously within the scope. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The section is on Romney's tax returns in the context of his 2012 campaign. Naapple (Talk) 19:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, thank you. And the tax returns he has released, and commentary about it published in reliable sources (such as the article from the BBC) are all within scope. Cwobeel (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Can people discuss here instead of reverting back and forth? We can have a debate without resorting to edit wars. It has been done before, you know? Cwobeel (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why this is not relevant? These are facts about his tax returns, no? Cwobeel (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney's 2010 tax return reports income of $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million in 2011, primarily from profits, dividends or interest from investments, and that he had a "bank account, security account or other financial account" in Switzerland; according to Romney's aides, this account was closed in 2010. Financial accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands were also reported. Benjamin Ginsberg, Romney campaign's legal counsel, reported that Romney earned $7.4 million in carried interest from Bain Capital in 2010. [1]

The section is about the aspect of releasing tax returns in the context of the election. It is this kind of crap that resulted in the correct designation of the Tax Return article being deleted as an obvious POV fork. Thus there is no reason to insert the POV forked material into the main article. This is out of scope of the section and is getting into the minutia of trivia without any context of why or how this is important regarding his presidential campaign. Arzel (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that quoting from Benjamin Ginsberg, Romney campaign's legal counsel, and from others on Romney's campaign is crappy trivia? Or are these just simple facts that are not disputed whatsoever? Which one is the correct answer, Arzel? Cwobeel (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Also note that your argument is specious. I have NOT inserted any material from the deleted article. That is all new material I researched and cited. Cwobeel (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
You are right, the Ginsberg throwaway is new trivial crap. Tell me exactly what does that have to do with his tax returns? Why just tell the story you really are trying to tell with your edit, rather than throw out a paragraph with implied conclusions for the "facts" you think are interesting. Arzel (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I have not seen a policy on WP:CRAP, but I have read WP:NPOV. Your argument does not hod any water. You need to do better than that to argue for the removal of that content. I will let others to weigh in. Cwobeel (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Why is is interesting? Because like it or not, it has been reported widely including by Romney's campaign, the subject of this article. Cwobeel (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Lol, that was hilarious. You do realize you actually sighted a real article, right? Does this at all sound familiar?

At times you will have little option but to say an edit is Crap. Either it is heavily WP:POV, or perhaps WP:OR with a little WP:SYNTH thrown in for good measure. You will explain patiently via edit summaries and on talk pages why this is so. But the other guy just will not engage the actual reasons, usually saying the sources meet WP:RS. Or they will revert you after you have removed the crap, then cite WP:BRD and bore you to tears on the talk page in the hope you will just give up. They will never see how their additions are original research. Or even that their edits are quite simply crap.

It's just funny because you've cited WP:BOLD in the past for completely ignoring talk on this very page in the recent past, not to mention right now with the whole WP:RS that apparently is supposed to mean the material is relevant. Also, you can't complain about edits and such and ask people to discuss the topic first whilst you're actively editing the main page. Naapple (Talk) 21:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Holy crap, the last 2 edits as of this moment were on topic! Naapple (Talk) 21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:CRAP is a humorous essay, not policy and that is why I quoted it. Stop laughing and start arguing sensibly. Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I will let others weigh in, because this is becoming tedious. I found your behaviour totally off the track. Cwobeel (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm getting confused on the criteria for this page. If the heading were "2012 US Presidential Campaign," then I would say there would be a HUGE section on Romney's taxes, because it's been a central topic for just about every pundit, every editorial column, every news outlet in the US at some point or other. But since this is "Romney's Campaign" page, I'm uncertain about the weight that should be given to his taxes. You can't ignore them. They have to go in there, just due to the number of times he (and his wife) have had to discuss it on the campaign trail. They didn't plan for it to be a part of his campaign, but it is nonetheless a part of it. If you err on the side of less information in this section, there should certainly be a link to the larger story.Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; failure to cover the tax return issue would be such a huge omission as to render the entire article non-neutral. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There's over 200 words in the article now, plus a link to a full history of what presidential nominees have done in the past. That's plenty! Let's leave some room for the general election campaign.71.88.58.198 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Space is not an issue, bits are cheap. I am not satisfied with the arguments for exclusion and if we can't get agreement what shall we do? Cwobeel (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Stop trying to put trivial crap into the article in order to push a POV. I realize that there is a desire by the left and Obama to continue to try and tie Romney to Bain after 2000, but such politicking has no place in WP. Arzel (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The pot calling the kettle black? I could argue similarly: stop politicking and push the Republican party talking points that dismisses concerns about the lack of transparency, the wealth and the loopholes he is taking advantage of by being so rich. Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
And the WP:TRUTH shall set you free! I have not been attempting to add Republican talking points to this article, so your argument falls flat. However, you have made it clear that you are pushing the Democratic talking point that Romney is able to take advantage of tax loopholes because he his rich and the average person is not. I really love this line of reasoning, because it so succinctly illustrates the fundamental ignorance that the left has about taxes and how they work. The wealthy pay vastly more in taxes than any other group, end of story. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If you want to engage on a general debate about taxation, you are welcome to do so on my Talk page. Here, we are talking about representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, the main guiding principle of Wikipedia. Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's been made abundantly clear in this article how wealthy Romney is, and that he's paid all taxes as prescribed by law. Opinion and conjecture on whether or not the amount is "fair" doesn't belong in wikipedia. And Arzel is right, this debate is gonna go on for another 2.5 months Naapple (Talk) 15:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree it is not going yo go away, and we will continue reporting on this as it evolves. I look forward to October when his 2011 tax return finally gets released. It will fun, I am sure of that. Cwobeel (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe. I'm half expecting him to pull a Barack-Obama and release his completely legitimate tax records after the opposition devotes all their time and energy into chasing a ghost (like BO did with his birth certificate). Naapple (Talk) 15:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be fund, wouldn't it? But I don;t think that is going to happen, and US voters will have no choice that to take this man at his words. Cwobeel (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See also the main Romney article

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I don't think it's correct to have "see also" hat note to the main Romney article. Per WP:Summary style, that's kind of backward, and the main Romney article ought to (and does) summarize and point to this article. I will fix.71.88.58.198 (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not? It is pertinent and we can't include here all what is on the Romney article. Cwobeel (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Your edit summary said that I removed this without discussion. How come? I started this discussion, right? Anyway, I just thought that putting the main Romney article in a "see also" hatnote was kind of screwy for the reasons that I explained (and that you have not attempted to address). But I am happy to leave it if you think it's important and means a lot to you. Cheers.71.88.58.198 (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I missed this comment, and self-reverted. I still believe it is useful, as the two subjects, his tax returns and his wealth are obviously interlinked. Think of the reader: wouldn't it be useful to her to find that link if she lands here first? Cwobeel (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If she lands here first, there's lots of stuff in the main Romney article that would be useful to her, not just the wealth stuff. I think you'll find it's very unusual at a Wikipedia sub-article to have a hatnote seealso to the main article. But we could start a new trend!  :-)71.88.58.198 (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The lists in the middle of the article

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Seems to me that putting lists smack dab in the middle of an article very much disturbs and interrupts the flow of the article. So, I think it would be a good idea to move "Campaign staff and policy team" and also "Foreign Policy and National Security Advisory Team" to the end of the article. Any problem with that?71.88.58.198 (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't object. Lists are best at the end. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I object. This article is about the campaign and the people involved are key to it. Cwobeel (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The list also contains lengthy descriptions, so I think we're in kind of a grey area. I lean towards keeping it near the top as it is now, in that the organization of the page has general background or non-chronological information at the top, while the rest of it sorta flows chronologically. This isn't completely true, however, and maybe we should discuss the whole page's layout. Naapple (Talk) 15:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

First television ad and questions about context

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I wrote the heading for this section, but on second thought I did so too narrowly. This ad is significant not just because it was the first ad, but because there were objections about taking things out of context. I will broaden the heading, and restore the removed quote from the New York Times, which seems very pertinent in this article, for the sake of NPOV. The title ought to be: "First TV advertisement and questions about context".71.88.58.198 (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't care for the current title but I can live with it :D Naapple (Talk) 15:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the following would be within the scope of this article and this section:

64.134.98.120 (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV`

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

This article needs a neutrality tag as there are quite a few areas that violate NPOV and use weasel words. For example: "Another gaffe that crippled the Romney campaign" Can someone add a neutrality tag until the article is cleaned up? Korentop (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There has been a campaign to remove material from the article, based on very vague claims of WP:Undue weight. In general this is a question of NPOV, material representing all reasonable POVs should be presented. In this case though, the claim is simply that material is not important enough to include. We need some sort of measures of "importance" if that standard is going to be used in practice. I'll suggest the amount of news coverage that a specific event gets should approximately equal its weight. For example the "International trip" which got news coverage from major networks everyday for a couple of weeks is currently the highest weight event, which doesn't quite seem reasonable, until you compare the other events covered and they don't seem as important, except for one. I don't suggest removing material, rather material should be added. Romney's tax returns have been getting news coverage on the major networks since January right up to today. They've been quite prominent for the last 6 weeks or so appearing on the major news shows 2-3 times a week. Clearly this story should have at least as much weight as the international trip. Making the amount of text at least as much would include everything down to the first section break in the material archived above. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Not a chance. That much text would overwhelm the article. Arzel (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Not a chance that folks will let you delete well documented material that is prominently mentioned in the press all the time, just because you don't like it. You need to express some sort of measure that you think corresponds with "Due Weight". I've given a perfectly good measure above - and all you can say is "not a chance." Please get serious about this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to have to go with Smallbones on this. We simply can't exclude something as important as this. We're required to include it. If you disagree, you know what to do, right? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
We're not "required" to include anything. What encyclopedia do you think you are editing anyway? Because that is not how Wikipedia works. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What you are required to do according to WP:NPOV - of which WP:Undue weight is a part. I'll put the word must in bold. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. .... The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

So you must stop removing well-sourced material that fairly and proportionately represents the discussion of Romney's tax returns in the campaign. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems the operative term in Smallbones' post is "reasonable". It's not reasonable to apply Democrat talking points to our description of this Republican convention. Belchfire-TALK 06:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Your reading of "reasonable" seems to be - "if I don't like it, it's not reasonable." You must stop deleting well-sourced material that fairly and proportionately represents the discussion of Romney's tax returns in the campaign. Or at least present some sort of argument why including this material is "unfair" or "not proportional." All I see from the deleters is "I don't like it." Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I must agree. Belchfire, if you express a preference without reason, anyone could just express the opposing preference with just as little reason. You need to go deeper; you need to justify your preferences. Otherwise, they are fundamentally unpersuasive. I've been suggesting this to you for some time now, so I'm sorry if this sound repetitive, but you're just not getting it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything in this article is "well sourced." The amount of "well sourced" content for this article would fill hundreds of pages. That is not the standard for inclusion. Inclusion is determined by a number of factors, one of which is WP:UNDUE. It is your job to substantiate that your text passes WP:UNDUE and gain consensus. You have not been successful in this so far.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Read above what you are required to do. WP:NPOV is NOT subject to consensus. You say "Inclusion is determined by a number of factors", actually it's all in WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This is good. I'm gonna remember this. Next time I wanna (un)slant the article one way or the other, I'll remember that I can ignore consensus and do whatever I personally believe to be right. Thanks! Naapple (Talk) 20:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Section on his pressure to push Todd Akin out of the race?

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

I would say that his efforts and Ryan's efforts to push Todd Akin out of the race. It was WP:N and fits in the article. Casprings (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you keep it to the Akin's BLP as I told you to do so. ViriiK (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:N has nothing to do with suitability of content within an article. I do not believe the Akin matter has passed WP:DUE at this time, mainly due to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. But we'll see.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree that this (probably) only belongs in Akin's article. Naapple (Talk) 11:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Really? Ryan called Akin and Romney publically stated he should drop out. That was national news and relavent to their campaign efforts. Casprings (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Relevant to Akin's campaign, not so much to Romney's. Tarc (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Akin's comments are not a good fit for this article. However, this brings up an interesting point - the abortion debate has become a part of the Romney campaign and should be added.Jasonnewyork (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I think what's being discussed here aren't Akin's comments but Romney's intervention. The latter does seem like a good fit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I think their intervention is only applicable to the extent that it impacted their campaign (for the purposes of this page). It could be argued that Akin is the one who brought the abortion issue to the fore for the Romney campaign, forcing them to talk about it much more than they anticipated, and it makes sense to tell the story with that context on this page, but to just have their intervention re Akin seems pointless.Jasonnewyork (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Check out http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/27/753491/following-akin-controversy-romney-changes-position-on-abortion/ I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't get how this would go into the page. His position is unchanged, and only extra attention on the issue was brought up because of Akin. What would it look like and where would it even go? Naapple (Talk) 15:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney's positions on abortion are anything but unchanged. Yes, we know he is currently against abortion, but which exceptions he allows for is still under debate. I can pull multiple articles showing confusion in the media, so don't say "it's clear." Just because Romney says "My position hasn't changed" doesn't mean it hasn't changed. Happy to provide references for that. So, the article would probably be titled "Role of abortion in the Romney's campaign." It would have a summary of his position, then illustrate why that position is unclear (conflicting statements on the matter) and why abortion is now a central part of the campaign (which is where the Akin link comes in). You can't say this isn't a major part of the campaign. And you can't say his position is clear. But even if his position were clear and unchanged, it's part of the 2012 campaign so it should go in there.Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Medicare

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Has anyone attempted to tackle Romney's views on medicare?Jasonnewyork (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The political positions article would seem the most appropriate place for that.64.134.98.120 (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk Comment Purging?

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I know this is a very active page right now (duh!), and see that a lot of comments have been purged (although available through the history). What are the rules/guidelines for this? Is someone doing it on a monthly basis? When an issue is resolved? How is it done? Dougom (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Mizabot is set to archive topics that have had no discussion in the previous 14 days. From what I know there is no set standard for the amount of time, it mostly just depends on how active the talk page is. If the page is really active then someone will usually come in and reduce the time to keep the talk page from becomming huge, and then when the activity dies down someone else will come along and extend it. If anything it is probably too long right now, but you also have to be careful that topics are not archived too quickly or they end up being discussed over and over and over again becuase they fall out of the talk page. As for you basic statement, however, nothing has been permenently purged (other than perhaps some personal attacks from time to time). Everything is stored in the archives which can be accessed from the top of the talk page. Arzel (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I figured it was something like that. So the thing is, there's a huge firestorm in the press right now over Ryan's speech from last night and the falsehoods it contained. There was a lengthy back-and-forth in June about whether or not Romney being called out on his untruths had risen to the level of needing its own section, and the consensus at the time was that it had not. But with the new wave of press coverage on the topic, I was wondering whether it needed to be revisited. Does one pull in the old discussion, or start a new one that references the old one, or how does that work? Dougom (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Start a new discussion topic specific to the new issue. Be wary about how you phrase the section unless you want to start off with a fight. True and False within most political discourse is a matter of perspective. For example, the line that most on the left are bitching about from last night is the Jainesville GM plant closing. Ryan did not make a false statement, although he did make it appear that Obama could have helped the plant stay open like Obama said he would in June 2008. Also, be careful about incorporating WP:NEWS into the article. The speech was less than 24 hours ago, it has not even been fully diseminated by the political talking heads yet. Most of what have now are snap judgements from media sources which have been quite sympathetic to Obama. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I was going to wait and see how much "legs" the story had. But wanted to know the process before I did anything. Thanks for the tips. Dougom (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Obama voters are "dependent upon government"

Latest comment: 11 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

I'm curious to gather some thoughts about whether to mention Mitt Romney's speech, given to a collection of wealthy donors and surreptitiously taped, in which he describes approximately half of the U.S. population as dependent upon government assistance, tax dodgers unwilling to "take personal responsibility", and thus unwilling to vote for him.

There's been quite a bit of coverage in independent, reliable sources, for example: USA Today, TIME, Financial Times, BusinessWeek, New York Times, Reuters, Associated Press, The Hill, Associated Press again, Orlando Sentinel, ABC News, Los Angeles Times, AFP, CBS News, The Telegraph, ::Politico, and so on. MastCell Talk 00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Give it a three line summary in a new section in the general election section, Obama camp has responded. It'll grow itself. Some sources hint at new tapes, so potential room for expansion. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Something needs to be said. Perhaps one of the more conservative editors can give it a shot. How has the Campaign responded? Maybe one of the Political operatives can put a few lines together as a starting point. We can't just ignore it. Or can we? ```Buster Seven Talk 03:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe by this time tomorrow the Deseret News will have picked up the story and we can use them as a reference. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Possible entry:

On Monday 9/17 Romney responded to a video that was taped during a private May fundraiser where he described 47% of the country as “victims” and “dependent upon the government.”

Any of the above refs are available. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

At this time, the video is briefly mentioned, but nobody reading the article would have a clue about its contents. Why? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remind editors that WP is not a newspaper. The current entry is very misleading. Let us treat this like we did with Obama's belittling of people in 2008 regarding "guns and religion" Let us wait for a day or so to let the facts settle and then work on a way to incorporate the material, and see just how much of an issue this becomes. Arzel (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The current entry is very misleading. How so? How does it mislead. Are there multiple interpretations that can mislead the reader? No. It is a clear simple statememnt of fact. Concise and precise. It uses no negative POV words like "belittling". If you more concerned about protecting your candidate than you are about creating an informative article, perhaps you should recuse yourself from further editing. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It is clear that it is "scare" "quoted" "for" "the" "most" "dramatic" "effect". Perhaps you should stop using WP to push political views, I am not the one that instantly jumped on this and violated WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Arzel (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Despite the discussion here, you just reverted the passage. This was a bold move, but I'm going to have to revert it so as to compel you to discuss it first and gain some consensus. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I see you simply ignored that this is a developing event, not to mention all of the POV scare quotes that are in the section. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to politely step aside to allow others to talk to you about this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The quotes are scary but they are not scare quotes. They are comments that Mr. Romney said in May and then clarified yesterday. Your protection of Romney is commendable but reverting Good Faith edits of your fellow editors is not. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Show me where the good faith is located, because I am not seeing it anywhere. I could say of you that your campaigning for Obama is commendable but ill-suited for WP. You are creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND in an area of already increased contentious editing. Tell me how this does not violate WP:NOTNEWSPAPER at this time. Arzel (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Assume Good Faith is a Pillar. Are you now claiming that you don't see the good faith of Liberal editors. And who is creating a Battleground? You have twice now, in the space of 3 days, completely reverted the good faith efforts of Editor:HectorMoffet. Would you not agree that reverting an editors edits without any warning or comment or discussion is abt to raise e few eyebrows...and a hackle or two. I challenge your protection of this article because I don't agree that protecting it is in the best interest of WP. I don't campaign for Obama. I have not made a single edit to any Obama related article except for the timeline articles. As others have said below, we can wait. But when the next late-night news conference is conveened to explain something, try not to use "Not a Newspaper". It doesnt pertain to campaign articles. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Our job is to report what our sources say. We don't get to whitewash. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine to wait a day or two to see how things shake out. Our coverage will only benefit from a little circumspection. In any case, we'll have a fuller picture of what's out there; for example, today the focus is on Romney's statements at the closed-door fundraiser that "for some time" he's held the view that "the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish." (Wall Street Journal, Reuters, etc etc.)

It seems like a precedent has been established that heavily covered election-season attacks are exempt from WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (and sometimes even qualify for standalone articles!) I'm not sure I agree with that precedent, but it clearly exists and should be applied evenly. MastCell Talk 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Very nice catch, MastCell! I would add that the whole point of having a daughter article about the campaign is that campaign incidents can be addressed in detail, even if the incident isn't of such enduring monumental significance that it deserves that kind of coverage (or, perhaps, any coverage) in the main bio article. Including a paragraph about the "47%" claim is the appropriate solution under WP:SS. JamesMLane t c 19:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Ohhhh SNAP. Mast, maybe you want to rethink your partisan bias for even bringing this up to begin with before you start throwing stones from your glass house. Arzel (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
@ {{User:Arzel]]. We are collaborators here. Please don't forget that. You may not agree with anything that we "Obamians" do or say, but your continued hard edged responses are not helping. I have holstered my weapons at your suggestion. I request you do the same. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Arzel, I can tell you think I'm supposed to be ashamed of something, but I'm not seeing it. I think I've been fairly consistent in opposing standalone articles on election-season attacks, regardless of whether those attacks are aimed at Obama or at Romney. That sort of consistency is sadly uncommon. I've opposed undue weight and partisan POV forks across the ideological spectrum. You linked a comment of mine, which I stand by. I'm having a hard time seeing why it's provoked such a "gotcha" reaction from you, but feel free to explain (preferably on my talk page, to avoid further distraction here). MastCell Talk 21:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Leaked video

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I would like to add the following or someting like it:

In a press conference hastily convened the night of the video's publication, Romney told reporters that while his extemporaneous remarks could have been more eloquently stated, he had been conveying an important message: that his proposals to lower taxes would not be as persuasive to those who are not paying taxes or who rely on government services as the president's proposals as they might be to his audience of $50,000 a plate donors. "The president believes in what I’ve described as a government-centered society, .........."

The point is that Romney was not speaking to the general public at a campaign stop. He was speaking to an audience that he felt might be in agreement with his interpretation of the sitution at hand. It softens the "He didn't really say that did he?" response. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I made some updates accordingly. NW (Talk) 21:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
There was a small typo, but otherwise it looks fine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Much of the leaked video content should be removed as WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight. It amounts to a campaign promo for the opposition and includes no balance.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Subarticle

Just a head's up-- there's a AFD debate about whether this section should be a subarticle or a section here. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Weekly Standard, the lone voice in the woods

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per BRD, I'm bringing up the insertion and subsequent removal of a contrary view.[4] It comes from the Weekly Standard, which describes itself as conservative, and does not repreent anything close to the mainstream view. It may be a minor view, but with just one data point, we can't say even that much. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Other opinions are not required to be "mainstream" especially when the two sources that were being used are hardly mainstream either. Huffpo? Really? Regardless, the previous statement was not even backed up by the statement, unlike mine which was. The other two sources (which I have removed) did not mention the difference between the two bounces as being ascribed to the lack of specifics on Romney. Granted one of the two (Bloomberg) did say that Romney lack specifics with regard to the convention, however it did not attribute the difference in the two bounces to this. The other (Huffpo) was upset that Romney did not mention more religion and also did not link the two event. It was quite the reach to ever make the statement from that source. I removed that section as it is no less fringe than the clearly stated assesment by known editor Jay Cost that the Obama bounce (now over as well) was partly due to media fawning, which to anyone watching NBC would have been hard pressed to miss. Arzel (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

BRD re Romney in London

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

An IP has persisted in rewording the sentence concerning press reaction to Romney's comments on preparations for the Olympics thus [5]. This appears to be self-evidently WP:OR: the sentence "In London, the British press exploited his comments restating "disconcerting stories" of security concerns over readiness of the London 2012 Olympic Games, which prompted a defensive response from British politicians." is *not* a reflection of the sources cited, but is POV editorializing (i.e. suggesting that the British press somehow conspired to force British politicians to denounce Romney's comments) which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Having reverted this edit once, I am now stating quite clearly why I did so: I don't particularly want to be involved in an edit-war, but this is a rare instance where it seems to me there is no justification to allow the edit to stand. I am going to leave a message on the IP's talk page explaining to him the policies involved and to ask him to self-revert - unless, perhaps, another editor here is prepared to do the revert. Alfietucker (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Since over an hour has passed with no response, I have now revised the sentence so it is more in line with the given citations. Alfietucker (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

concession speech not notable?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Really? Hcobb (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama's election-night speech is mentioned at here at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, to then leave out Romney's concession speech in this campaign article is against WP:NPOV. Shearonink (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Romney didn't see Romney as a good investment

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-president-obama-won-a-second-term-20121123 The speculation now is, "Why didn't he just write himself a check after the primaries until his fundraising got up to steam?" He could have just written himself a check on whatever he was short. The man is worth at least $250 million – $50 million ain't going to break him.

Is this good enough on its own, or do I need more references? Hcobb (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

fail redirect

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

some redirect-vandalism (fail)...I personally don't know how to remove it.
Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Auto production in China

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A reference has been added to add another perspective regarding the campaign statement regarding auto production in China. There has been some edit warring going on regarding this addition to the article, so I thought it best to bring to the talk page to discuss whether or not is should be included. To me, it seems that without this aspect the section is a little one-sided and POV. I hope others will weigh in here rather than just add and revert. 72Dino (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Chicago-style politics"

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This recent addition to the article seems questionable. Why is this one of many rhetorical statements used during the campaign being singled out. The link goes to a recent article of questionable value. This appears to be an attempt to add links to other articles in an attempt to bolster the newly created article.Springee (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified 2

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified 3

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I propose that Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney be merged into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. I think that the content in the article is already mostly covered in the "Readiness Project" section. *Seen a Mike* 22:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Groeger, Lena (24 Jan 2012). "Inside Romney's Tax Returns: A Reading Guide". ProPublica. Retrieved 2012-08-27.
  2. ^ Michael D. Shear. “Reminders of Romney’s Comments, From the Obama Camp”, The New York Times (April 11,2012).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mitt_Romney_2012_presidential_campaign/Archive_3&oldid=1137015775"