Talk:Public image of Mitt Romney

What improvements to this Article can be made ?

To start the Talk-page "Discussion", I suggest this Article is rather good as it stands today. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I just added his Facebook entry since it is obviously created and maintained by his campaign team to boost his image. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Persona subsection

There is a tag suggesting that the subsection "Persona" can be expanded. Since the only sentence and reference comes from The New York Times before the Republican debates, it will be easy to reflect more positive opinions in the press and from TV. After most of the debates now, he has improved his presentations and his own persona, IMHO. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps so. IAC unless this section can be expanded, the article should be retitled, since, IMO "public image" is too broad a rubric to describe an article mostly about a public figure's religious heritage with additional details about his overall background but little about public perceptions of the individual.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW here's the lede from the McCain blp's public image section:

John McCain's personal character has been a dominant feature of his public image.[1] This image includes the military service of both himself and his family,"Military Veterans step up for John McCain", his maverick political persona, his admitted problem of occasional ill-considered remarks, and his close ties to his children from both his marriages.

The subarticle about McCain's public image itself's lede reads:

John McCain's personal character has dominated the image and perception of him.[1] His family's military heritage, his rebellious nature as a youth, his endurance over his treatment as a prisoner of war, his resulting physical limitations, his political persona, his well-known temper, his admitted propensity for controversial or ill-advised remarks, and his devotion to maintaining his large blended family have all defined his place in the American political world more than any ideological or partisan framing (although the latter became more prominent beginning in 2008).

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Third party opinion requested. There is a two-party dispute as to whether the NY Times's characterizations of Romney's persona as facts-driven, cautious, formal, socially stiff, and "spare with his emotions," along with its accompanying references, merits inclusion--e.g., see diff.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian and have removed the Third Opinion request. 3O (and virtually all content dispute resolution processes) are, per their guidelines, for discussions on talk pages which have been thoroughly discussed but have come to a standstill. Discussion through edit summaries will not suffice. I cannot find any substantial discussion of these issues either here or on anyone's user talk page. If I've missed finding the discussion, please put a pointer to it here and feel free to relist the 3O at the WP:3O page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree With TransportMan here. Unless we are missing something, I don't see a dispute. It seems that you and the other editor don't particularly have reasons to include what you want and not and are just asking for a 3O to gain another set of eyes. You should use a rfc for this.Curb Chain (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Romney has been endorsed by various newspapers. Placing one editorial by a single author in a persona section is undue weight and not encyclopedic.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Where to start? It was not an editorial. It was more than one article. ...--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Is the perception of Mitt Romney as calculated/data-obsessed etc. (or however such should be phrased; the current text states, "During 2011, The New York Times described Romney's persona as facts-driven, cautious, formal, socially stiff, and 'spare with his emotions'") sufficiently notable to merit its inclusion in the article Public Image of Mitt Romney in some fashion, as sourced (at present) to two in-depth profiles of Romney in the New York Times (Parker, Ashley; Barbaro, Michael (December 27, 2011), The Retooled, Loose Romney, Guessing Voters’ Age and Ethnicity, New York Times; Kakutani, Michiko (January 16, 2012), A Life Hidden Behind Adjectives, New York Times {{citation}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help))? The disputant championing inclusion believes that since the subject is not strictly biographical but, rather, pertains to whatever characteristics many in the public may tend to associate with Romney, as a public figure, through various portrayals in serious and/or pop-culture media, that the described characteristics are common enough to merit inclusion and that the NYT instances are reasonable ones to cite for the purpose (upon the principle that, say, both the idea of Abe Lincoln's walking for miles uphill through snow to return a penny and the idea of his being an untrustworthy religious skeptic might find inclusion in a treatment of the image of Lincoln during his lifetime, if sourced to portrayals that were wide-spread or typical during that period; and ditto for media portrayals pertaining to William Jennings Bryan or Stephen A. Douglas in respective articles or sections pertaining to these subjects). According to my understanding of the position of the editor opposing inclusion, it is that s/he believes the cited opinion about Mitt Romney is not notable, arguing (if perhaps somewhat laconically) it can only be attributed to isolated mentions in the media and/or instances of publication.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The section is too short and too slanted. It needs amplification with other points of view. Positive views should balance out the present negative view and readers can then consider the sources and their opinions. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no real reason not to include the information as long as it is balanced with other reviews of him. I imagine that other notable individuals/publications have published reviews of his personality which paint him in a much more personable light. Depictions like these help to give us a better understanding of the individual being read about. Ayzmo (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Public perception of wealth

This article misses half the story. The most notable aspect of Romney's public image in my mind is how we view his wealth – how we view his upbringing as privileged and how that translates to him being unable to connect with the "average" American. This is a glaring omission. Mm40 (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you want to see that half-the-story in the Wikipedia article for JFKerry who married rich? The wealth Romney inherited was donated to BYU and he then earned what he and Ann have today. This is also known by many who now consider him for president. What weight this weighs in this article is open to discussion. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in reading John_F._Kerry I see there is a paragraph in his Family section that notes the wealth, including the Heinz inheritance; plus, this article is about public image, so why not talk about it? I would just suggest to make it fair. Where do you find reliable public opinion sources? And, FYI, the Obama campaign today is pressing for a decade of tax records from Romney. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hilary Rosen thought that too. (You may have read that she was paid $120,000/yr by DNC.) She said that Ann Romney hadn't worked a day in her life (reminiscent of Theresa Heinz Kerry saying that of Laura Bush) and it backfired when Ann Romney said she raised five sons and Mothers would understand. Axelrod then claimed she did not work for them but for CNN (but CNN hadn't paid her the $120,000). Hilary Rosen thought like your note suggests, that since she no real job experience, Mitt Romney should not be listening to what Ann tells him about working women. Ann gets a lot of mileage now by saying that working women suffer under the Obama Economy. So, yes, it is a major part of the image of Ann and Mitt Romney now, and if the election is close, and the voting women stand with Ann, that could be the election right there. Others think the election won't even be close. (You can decide which way it will go, if it is not even close.) In regards to this article, "Public image of Mitt Romney", I would only suggest we be fair and well-documented. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind: the public perception of Mitt and Ann Romney is not monolithic .!. Hence any encyclopedic entry should (in my opinion) be of a survey nature. Polling often reports statistics by category (e.g., women, men, Conservative, Liberal, urban, rural, college age, senior, middle, Democrat, Republican, Independent).

Here is a quote reflecting one demographic, and it speaks against the Occupy-people: "I have a theory. I could be a little off on this. But I think Mitt Romney and Ann Romney may be the stereotypes of everything Obama and people like him resent in this country." This quote won't be included in this article, but a Gallup Poll on "Romney Image" would be interesting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Mitt, Ann and brood are definately going to caricaturized as belonging to "the horsey set," etc., so such richie rich stuff ought definately to be included (whereas more generic stuff not directly pertaining to "image" but with straight-up "biography" should IMO be slimmed down/contextualized).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

We've a few months before things heat up, but, fair warning: There's gonna be a major "secretive" meme going on as well. (Today's Gail CollinsMaureen Dowd column in The Grey Lady, along with "the horsey set" quote from above, puts in hits on "secretive and shapeshifting," too, fwiw: hah!)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the description. It might be wrong and it might change, but it is the "public image". TFD (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional Reading

Ok, Just how many "Romney is a Mormon!" articles for additional reading are needed here? 8 of the current 11 are about him being a Mormon, you would think that is the only reason that he is known, and this was after I removed the latest two Mormon articles. One of these, by the way, fails WP:EL. I submit that unless any of them actually add anything most should be removed. Arzel (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Polls Section needs to be reworked

The "Polls" section of the article currently contains four disjointed sentences. Three of those sentences discuss results of polls conducted in 2007 and 2011 in which participants were asked how likely they would be to vote for a Mormon; none of these three sentences mentions Mitt Romney by name. The fourth sentence says that in a February 2011 television interview, Romney made remarks "downplaying" his religion as a political factor.

This section, as currently written, does not fit into the flow of the rest of the article. If polls dealing with electability of Mormons are to be included in the article, the text needs to show why such polls are relevant for Romney. (What percentage of the surveyed population at the times the polls were conducted even knew that Romney was a Mormon?)

Accordingly, I am deleting the section. I would not object to the section being reinstated after being significantly reworked, or to the information currently included in the section being incorporated into other parts of the article, as appropriate. Dezastru (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What the media have called "flip-flopping"

There is a pervasive (on both sides of the political spectrum) and extensively covered perception of Romney adopting contradictory "flavor-of-the-month" positions too eagerly. Granted, I've only skimmed the article, but I see no mention of this, which strikes me as somewhat suspicious considering that it has become very nearly integral to Romney news coverage. Karin Anker (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You should re-read the sections on his tenure as governor and his 2008 and 2012 campaigns. Dezastru (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC) (edit: misplaced comment, referring to main article on Mitt Romney) Dezastru (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

see the Images of political philosophy section. Dezastru (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Karin Anker (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Where's the satire section?

Eg article section could mention College Humor's "Romney Style" spoof.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Public image of Mitt Romney. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071211083938/http://www.kansascity.com:80/445/story/396249.html to http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/396249.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)