Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Money

I read that Romney used $45 million of his own money on the 2008 campaign. Is there any information about Romney spending his own money now as well? Cwobeel (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't spent any (other than one token contribution). He was intent on setting up a leaner, meaner primary campaign this time around, and was able to do so against weak, underfunded opponents. (Had Rick Perry's campaign taken off, the story might have been different.) And now in the general election, he's got Shelden Adelson and other SuperPAC types behind him. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Opinions

The article had this sentence: "Romney ran the planning for the Games like a business", which reads as an assertion of fact. But that is not the case, as that is the opinion of Lane Beattie. So, I have changed that sentence to be properly set as an opinion, as per the source used:

"According to Lane Beattie, who was the president of the Utah state Senate at the time, Romney ran the planning for the Games like a business." Cwobeel (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a controversial or challenged position? That Romney was brought in to run the olympics because of his business background is well noted. It seems a little tedious to now imply that it is a fringe opinion that he ran the olympics from a business point of view. Are there any sources arguing that he did not run the olympics as he would a business? Arzel (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Proving a negative is always a losing proposition. If you want to, we could re-write that sentence more generically, or omit it in its entirety as that is already covered. Cwobeel (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Read the source (http://news.yahoo.com/romney-led-olympics-success-help-085513182--spt.html) and tell me if that article is well summarized here, or if that quote from Lane Beattie was not cherry-picked :) Cwobeel (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said you had to prove the negative, just whether there has been a different position than the one commonly applied, we at least up until now that the left wants to redefine the issue. It seems that this was an uncontroversial issue until now. Arzel (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

maybe we should quote also his colleague Rick Santorum (also quoted on that source) ""He heroically bailed out the Salt Lake City Olympic Games by heroically going to Congress and asking them for tens of millions of dollars to bail out the Salt Lake games — in an earmark, in an earmark for the Salt Lake Olympic Games." Cwobeel (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Or McCain: ""an incredible pork-barrel project for Salt Lake City and its environs." Cwobeel (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Political attack pieces are not relevent to the approach that he took regarding the olympics, in fact those attacks do not discuss the fundamental position Romney took when he managed the olympics. I am not sure why you are comparing apples to oranges here. I understand the need of the left to createa a revisionist history here regarding the olympics, but that POV approach should be highly discouraged here. Arzel (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the statement. It was a pretty recent addition, coming in May during some churn in that section, and I don't think it adds much. "Show, don't tell" applies here - the statements that come next ("Romney revamped the organization's leadership and policies ...") always used to lead off that paragraph, and get the same idea across in a more tangible, specific way. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a good way to resolve this. Cwobeel (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My Revert (International Trip)

The addition by Cwobeel was far too one sided for the coverage of this issue. Without description of what is being criticized, and weakly sourced. I invite opinions. Arkon (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I restored it, based on the recent discussion somewhere above. Talk:Mitt_Romney#Overseas_Trip. Cwobeel (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That discussion was not an endorsement of your approach. Summarize this visit and leave out the opinion. Please do not put the opinions back into the section, they are covered within the sub-article. Arzel (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"gaffe" must be attributed to each media organisation claiming that perception. You cannot just say "perceived ".

Cwobeel, would you please stop expanding that section. This is supposed to be a summary. Arzel (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel, as much as you would like to include nothing but Romney's london trip, there was a lot more that happened. I re-edited it, keeping some of yours and some of mine. If the user wants more info, they have the cites. The facts have been documented. Naapple (Talk) 22:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

AlphieTucker (one of your guys) edited my edit. I can live with it as it is now. Naapple (Talk) 23:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not perfect, but I guess I can live with it. Thanks for your patience. Cwobeel (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Businessman" claim unsupported

Per Wikipedia:

"A business (also known as enterprise or firm) is an organization engaged in the trade of goods, services, or both to consumers.[1]"

1. Arthur O'Sullivan, Steven M. Sheffrin (2003). Economics: Principles in action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 29. ISBN 0-13-063085-3.

There is no evidence anywhere that Mitt Romney has ever worked in a business other than the Salt Lake City Olympics. (Bain does not sell anything to consumers.) A two-year patronage position selling tickets does not a businessman make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.188.18 (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a generic term, but I see your point. It may be more accurate to describe him as a private equity investor, or something along these lines. Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

From that same wikipedia article: Financial businesses include banks and other companies that generate profit through investment and management of capital.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The simple explanation is that every RS calls him a businessman. Hot Stop 15:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

makes sense, thanks. Cwobeel (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps one should note that Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. In common English, a "businessman" is anyone engaged in a "business". And it is intuitively obvious 1. reliable sources use the term about Romney, and 2. reliable sources call Bain a "business." Farms are, for example, a "business" even if they sell only to other businesses. The bit about needing direct contact wth "consumers" is ludicrous. Collect (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A consumer is any entity which you do business with. There seems to be a confusion with end-use consumer and consumer in the generic sense. Banks, for example, are consumers of products produced by other banks. Arzel (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect summarized it well. Actually I thought it was so obvious that it didn't need saying but the question was raised. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

The article is semi-protected, so perhaps a registered user would make these changes:

• The length of this wlink seems huge and excessive: "LDS Church's policy at the time of denying the lay priesthood, and some sacraments, to blacks". How about: "LDS racial policy which at that time denied the lay priesthood, and some sacraments, to blacks". Per WP:Piped link, "First of all, keep links as simple as possible. Avoid making links longer than necessary...."

I changed the overlink to "LDS Church racial policy at the time" - this is a sensitive topic among some editors and I think they'd object to anything to didn't indicate 'in blue' that it's no longer in effect. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That's better. FYI, the most thoughtful article that I've found on this subject is <ref>Jason Horowitz. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-genesis-of-a-churchs-stand-on-race/2012/02/22/gIQAQZXyfR_story.html "The Genesis of a church’s stand on race"], ''[[Washington Post]]'' (February 28, 2012).</ref> It mentions that, "Mitt was well regarded by the few black students at the prestigious Cranbrook School outside Detroit." Perhaps more significant is Romney's recollection of pulling his car over to the side of the road in 1978 "to weep with joy upon learning of the lifting of the ban." I don't think anyone seriously questions the truthfulness of that recollection, especially in view of his family's other steps on behalf of civil rights. Maybe some of this deserves a mention, instead of only dwelling on his non-attendance at protests.108.18.174.123 (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's a good piece. But I've never included the 1978 reaction in this article because the first mention of it comes in 2007 during his first presidential campaign, by which time it was a self-serving thing to say. (For the same reason I haven't included his later statements about what he thought about the Vietnam War.) If there was some record of Mitt telling the story earlier, either in an interview he gave or in an interview with someone whom Romney related to the story to, then I'd be more inclined to include it. As for his father's record on civil rights rubbing off on Mitt, I hope that's true, but one of his father's other key characteristics - the willingness to defy political trends and stick by what you believe in, come what may - didn't rub off on Mitt at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article mentions that Mitt Romney "was present at the 1964 Republican National Convention when his moderate father battled conservative party nominee Barry Goldwater over issues of civil rights and ideological extremism." That's okay as far as it goes, but "[Romney advisor Charles] Manning said Romney joined his father, former presidential candidate George Romney, in walking out of the 1964 Republican national convention after a civil rights plank was blocked by conservatives." See "Kennedy Challenges LDS Opponent to Discuss Equality Issues", UPI via The Deseret News (Sep 27, 1994). If this is backed up by reliable sources, it certainly would seem to be a feather in Mitt Romney's civil rights cap, and worth mentioning in this BLP. It's the kind of thing that can be verified, unlike the 1978 thing.108.18.174.123 (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

And here's confirmation. "He walked out of his own party’s convention, taking with him De Vries and his 17-year-old son Mitt, and became, in that moment, a candidate for president in 1968." See Benjamin Wallace-Wells. "George Romney for President, 1968", New York Magazine (May 20, 2012). This protest he attended.108.18.174.123 (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think George Romney walked out of that convention in a literal sense. I spend four paragraphs discussing the 1964 race in the George W. Romney#Governor of Michigan article and I believe that portrayal of it is accurate. He battled Goldwater and the conservative forces, stayed at the convention to the end, and then announced he was neither endorsing nor repudiating the ticket. See for example one of the sources used there, this UPI/NYT story filed July 16, 1964, the Thursday last day of the convention (and published on the 17th). Romney says he is "going home tomorrow". So saying George "battled" Goldwater is the most accurate concise way of capturing what happened. If you can find me a news story at the time that says he walked out of the convention, then I'll take another look at it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems a bit more ambiguous than it seemed at first. Jack Bell of Associated Press wrote an article that was widely published on July 17, 1964 in which Bell wrote: "Michigan Gov. George W. Romney said that unless the nominee demonstrates that he is willing to go beyond the platform in some vital areas, such as civil rights, 'I will go home and campaign for Michigan Republicans.'" So in a sense he did walk out on Goldwater. Anyway, see you later.108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The George article makes this clear: "For the fall 1964 elections, Romney cut himself off from the national ticket, refusing to even appear on the same stage with them[140] and continuing to feud with Goldwater privately.[26] He campaigned for governor in mostly Democratic areas, and when pressed at campaign appearances about whether he supported Goldwater, he replied, "You know darn well I'm not!"[141]" But to go back to your original point, I don't see this as a "a feather in Mitt Romney's civil rights cap". Everybody is judged on their own actions and merits; Mitt should not get credit for the things George did well or blame for the things George did poorly. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. I had been under the impression that Mitt actually stood up and walked out of the 1964 convention in protest. Anyway, I assume you would agree that Mitt should not get credit for the things his church did well or blame for the things his church did poorly. BTW, Mitt Romney dog incident is much better now, so there's no need for this main BLP to have a note detailing the flowing poop.108.18.174.123 (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitt was an adult in his 20s by the time the LDS policy towards blacks was being debated. Some Mormons not only disagreed with the policy but were willing to speak out publicly against it - Stewart Udall and Dialogue magazine being an example. Mitt wasn't in that group, that's all the article is trying to say. As for the dog article, surely you jest - the edit warring on it has been so bad it just got off a three-day full lockdown. In fact you even went to WP:AN3 to get somebody else blocked for 3RR violations on that article. So no, this article will take responsibility for (briefly) describing the dog on the roof. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, you will find that Mitt Romney dog incident is much better now, and there's no need to include a detailed note. You can wait a while to confirm that MRDI is stable if you like.  :-)108.18.174.123 (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• This article blasts Romney for being "unrealistic" and "pandering" regarding the automobile industry. This is very one-sided, and does not reflect the more balanced treatment at Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Automotive_industry. Romney supported a managed bankruptcy (which ultimately was implemented by the Obama administration in combination with the bailout that Romney opposed), and he believed that the managed bankruptcy should be accompanied by federal financing guarantees instead of a bailout; he also supported spending $100 billion dollars of federal money on the automobile industry for retraining and green tech, but Romney has been criticized for being unclear about how he would have financed the bankruptcy itself if banks refused. Instead of merely saying here that he has been criticized for being "unrealistic" and "pandering", I recommend providing a more neutral statement, perhaps in the section on political positions.

You're confusing two separate things in the article - his stance on the auto industry in January 2008 during the Michigan presidential primary, before the financial crisis and recession hit, and his stance on it in late 2008 after those things hit. The "unrealistic" and "pandering" in the Note refers to the former, not the latter. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could mention in the note that this was before the financial crisis and recession hit.108.18.174.123 (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Minor. This sentence seems to be missing a word: "In 1954, his father became the chairman and CEO of American Motors, a company he helped to avoid bankruptcy and return to profitability."

• Minor. This sentence also seems awkward: "Romney was involved in many pranks, some of which he later said may have gone too far and apologized for." I'd write: "Romney was involved in many pranks, some of which he later apologetically said may have gone too far."

I prefer to keep this formulation because it's the 'order' that Romney said it in. Your phrasing makes him sound more contrite than he actually was. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Minor. Seems like President of the Olympic Organizing Committee should be linked in the "See also" section. It is already linked once in the article, in the table after the footnotes, but List of Governors of Massachusetts is linked three times in the article.

Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.108.18.174.123 (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of these have been debated in recent history, but I'll take a stronger look after the weekend. You should consider registering! Naapple (Talk) 08:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll try not to pester people much as an IP (which I'll remain).198.228.200.159 (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Similarities with father

There's a huge note detailing similarities with his father. If there's going to be such a huge note, why not add that neither one publicly criticized the LDS racial policy?108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A) there is probably a lot of other things that they both did not do. B) Can you prove that neither has publicly criticized what was the LDS racial policy. C) proving (stating) the negative is never a good approach to take with anything. Arzel (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This article already says that the son did not publicly criticize the policy (he "did not join in protests against the war or against the LDS Church racial policy at the time of denying the lay priesthood, and some sacraments, to blacks"). And the George Romney article says that the father didn't either. So it makes some sense to mention this in the note that says how much they had in common. Regarding action versus inaction, I raised the question here.108.18.174.123 (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a nice little hit section there. A subtle attempt to label Romney a Racist to say the least. I added his response when the LDS changed their policy. On a side note the WaPo contridicts your premise slightly regarding George Romney; "And while Romney’s father, by then an unsuccessful presidential candidate who had joined the Nixon Cabinet, addressed the student body about the injustices of racial inequality and the tragedy of the war, his son shut out the formative issues of his day as destructive distractions. Instead, he turned to the traditional Mormon tenets of family, faith and hard work as the blueprint for building a safer, more impenetrable place for himself." I suppose one could question whether that was a public criticism or not, but that is not for WP to decide. Regardless, Romney apparently didn't protest anything at that time, so why the focus on just that? I suppose the temptation is too great to resist: Obama is Black and Romney didn't actively protest the racial discrimination at the time, therefore Romney is racist. These constant racism issues are really getting tiring. Arzel (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. Romney's "response" to the LDS change of policy: it's not at all clear from the NYT article from which this was taken that he said this in 1978 - in fact it appears to have been said much later, which would make quite a difference to his intention in saying this (given it's politically a good idea these days to say that kind of thing). Unless we can definitely demonstrate that this was said in the immediate wake of the policy change (in 1978), then I would avoid quoting this as it otherwise is borderline if not actual POV-pushing. Alfietucker (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So his word is good to use to state that he did not participate in protests, but it is not good enough for him to comment on the change in the LDS policy? Since when have the words of the subject of a BLP required a secondary source? I am tempted to remove the whole section as nothing more than a POV push, but thought it would be fine to simply include his comments about the change in LDS policy, but apparently that is POV pushing? Also, you need a good reason to remove his response regarding the issue. It looks very much like you are pushing a POV, and are working hard to make sure it sticks. Arzel (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that, ultimately, the only place where it makes sense to mention the church policy is in the note about similarities between father and son, where it can also be mentioned that the public silence about church policy should not be taken as support for it, as evidenced and exemplified by the father's civil rights record.12.133.56.98 (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@Arzel - I'm not quite sure whether you intend to say what you appear to be saying. If you are saying that the NYT article, published in 2007, is the *primary* source for that quote, and if that's indeed the case, then it is indeed shaky evidence, since there's no reason then to think it's other than Romney's version of events related decades later. Assuming that the NYT article *is* a secondary source, there is certainly no evidence from that article that Romney originally made that quote back in 1978 (as your edit said). If he in fact said it in 1978, or at the very least in the late 1970s and there's a citation to prove this, then by all means put the quote back in with that citation. But until someone can do this, then the danger of using that quote is - as I said - POV pushing. btw I considered whether the quote might go in with a context-providing intro, but can't see how this can be done (e.g. "In 2007 Romney was reported as saying: [quote]) without risking the charge of "editorializing" if it turns out there is a prime or earlier source for that quote. So far better, I think, to try to find that quote either in its original context (if it's not that of the NYT article) or at least prove that it has been published in the late-1970s when it could indeed be taken as reasonable evidence of what Romney hoped for. Alfietucker (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@Arzel - I see despite my asking you to come to the talk page, possibly to hammer out a solution, you've persisted in reinstating word-for-word that edit with the quote. I suggest you have another read of my post above and consider whether that's really the line of action you want to take. I have, in the meantime, given the quote some appropriate (if provisional) context, but I really think the quote should not be posted at all unless it can be given a citation to prove it is a near contemporary of the events it relates to. Alfietucker (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this brief mention was simply to indicate whether Mitt was an activist or radical on campus at a time when such activities were at a peak. He wasn't. That's about all the original intent. It's not about his father, it's not about racism, it's not about Obama, it's not about any of the things you folks are imagining. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Then just say he wasn't an activist or political radical on campus. There's no need to describe the things he wasn't active or politically radical about.166.147.120.24 (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems silly to me. None of the news or biographical sources we use does that; they mention Vietnam and the LDS policy. So should we. We can't freak out and overreact just because somebody thinks this is about Obama. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to provide context for the statement that he wasn't politically active, then go ahead and mention the LDS policy, but don't stop there. Give a balanced context, as the sources do, by saying that Mitt Romney's public silence about that policy was the same as his civil-rights-supporting father. You already mention every other possible commonality between father and son, except for this critical one.166.147.120.24 (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I give up. Elaborating on all the LDS policy stuff, as was done last night and as you additionally want now, would give it undue weight. It was far more an issue for George and Lenore, who were active politicians at the time, than it ever was for Mitt. I've removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should all be removed. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)I disagree that it would be undue weight to mention this briefly in the father-son Note. Something like, "Mitt's father had a strong civil rights record, but declined to publicly criticize his church's discriminatory policy, and Mitt followed his father in that public silence, prior to repeal of the policy in 1978." That's not undue weight at all.166.147.120.19 (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've put in something Mitt did say about Vietnam at the time. It was quite expected that young men would have opinions about the war at the time, since it very materially affected their future, and this has the virtue of being something he said rather than something he didn't do. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the LDS policy on blacks, the only evidence of Mitt's actual views during the time he was at BYU is, per this WaPo story that is a source, that he didn't like Stanford's decision to stop playing BYU in football and that he wasn't the kind of person who would have spoken out publicly against the church. But there's nothing that says he wanted to speak out against the church, and nothing to say that he was active in any general civil rights activities. As this NYTM profile from 1967 states, while George was powerless to change his church - due to the requirement that only divine revelation change the policy - George demonstrated many times over by word and by significant deed that he disagreed with any second-class treatment of blacks. Mitt did not so, so I don't think a comparison between them is apt. But Mitt was also young at the time, and full of other activities and responsibilities as a young parent, so I am also okay with having no mention of the LDS policy at all in this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Pro-life" vs "Opposition to legal abortion"

I'm bringing this to the talk page because there's clearly a disagreement between some editors about whether Romney "opposes legal abortion" or "is pro-life". The latter seems too imprecise: firstly, "pro-life" is a political movement which not only opposes abortion but also stem-cell research, the latter being something which Romney has been publicized by his own party as supporting [1]. The fact Romney opposes legal abortion is both unambiguous and incontrovertible. Can we agree not to keep replacing this with "pro-life" which only obscures the issue. Alfietucker (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

He also opposes illegal abortion, so it would be more accurate to state he "opposes abortion." However, that too may be too imprecise. It is likely that he does not oppose abortion in the case of incest or when the mother's life is in danger. So, he would not oppose legal abortion in those cases. This gets tricky. 72Dino (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, one may oppose legal abortion but think it should be legal. What specific action does Romney intend to outlaw legal abortion? Probably easier just to say that he says he is "pro-life" and leave it at that. TFD (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, "pro-life" is hopelessly imprecise and fudges the issue re Romney's policy. Probably the best thing is to spell out Romney's stated policy on abortion (there's a succinct summary here [2], for instance). I'm happy have a go at this tomorrow if nobody else has in the next 8 hours or so. Right now it's very late here in the UK and I need to go to the land of nod. Alfietucker (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Using terms like "opposes illegal abortion" is confusing. Most people know the terms as pro-life or pro-choice. Anyways, read the first 4 words on this page:

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

He's pro life. Settled. Naapple (Talk) 23:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree the editors who want to use the term "oppose legal abortion". Pro-life is a very notable term which has been prominent since the Clinton Administration and has a well defined meaning to it. However him being a member of the LDS church, he is likely to have a larger definition on what legal abortion means vs those who oppose all forms of abortions. So his Pro-Life stances would be along the lines of the LDS church rather than the general population. So "oppose legal abortions" is pretty ambiguous so I would suggest saying "pro-life" because it does explain to some detail in that article. ViriiK (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) There's no rush on an encyclopedia, as they say. Here is a news report clarifying that he does support abortion under certain circumstances (rape, incest, mother's health.) I believe pro-life is the most succinct way of saying all that. 72Dino (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an international encyclopedia. When a reader comes to this section and reads "pro-life" what does it mean? Absolutely nothing. There is no person in the planet (unless you are a murderer) that is not pro-life. We need to spell what that means in the US. Cwobeel (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You are engaging in an edit war. Consensus has not been reached here. Do not change that section again.

The pro-life page directs to "opposition to legal abortion". A link there is absolutely sufficient to someone unfamiliar with the term. Naapple (Talk) 23:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well that makes my point even more valid. If the pro-life page is "opposition to legal abortion", then lets spell it for the readers, rather than force them to click and leave the page just to find out a very different page than what they would normal expect for "pro-life". Cwobeel (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Either way both terms can be ambiguous. However I would suggest to say that "pro-life similar to that of his LDS faith" or something like that? However please stop reverting until there is consensus. ViriiK (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel, you edited "opposition to abortion" which is incorrect. As stated in this very conversation, there are unique circumstances in which Romney believes abortion is acceptable. The entire page that is "opposition to legal abortion" covers several of these aspects. And the term in and of itself doesn't describe it accurately. Romney describes himself as pro-life. The media describes him as pro-life. This page should reflect that. Naapple (Talk) 23:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop changing the page. It's currently where it was at before this debate began. You cannot change it in the middle of a consensus debate. Once more and I'm reporting. Naapple (Talk) 23:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Relax, hombre! And please respond to my arguments above. Cwobeel (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what the linked article says: "Opposition to legalization of abortion is centered around the pro-life movement (also known as anti-abortion movement), a social and political movement opposing elective abortion on moral grounds and usually supporting its legal prohibition or restriction. Advocates generally maintain that the human fetus (and in most cases the human embryo) is a person and therefore has a right to life". So if the movements is called pro-life, and also anti-abortion, why are we using pro-life which is ambiguous to every non-US reader? Cwobeel (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He does not oppose all legal abortions which your phrasing is misleading in representing his views. As per Collect said, that's the best way we can do about it. ViriiK (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that now, after The Magnificent Clean-keeper edit, is the best way to do it, if at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitt_Romney&diff=505505157&oldid=505503912 Cwobeel (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He is LDS and appears simply to conform to LDS tenets -- it would be noteworthy if he opposed the LDS positions/ Hence, why not say "He subscribes to the LDS teachings on abortion" and leave it there -- anything more might simply be allowing POV pushing on the topic. Collect (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

He's pro-life as in a common conservative viewpoint. I don't see him ever mentioning LDS.

Magnificent Clean-Keeper's edit is false and uncited, plus this is still being discussed anyway. Romney ran as upholding the laws in place at the time, but when faced with legislation he's always taken pro-life action. He states he was always personally pro-life, but at one point believed the gov't didn't have the power to regulate such in people's lives until faced with actual legislation as governor. Saying he was once pro-choice as a blanket statement is false. If you want to include "pro-choice", it'll have to be worded around those terms, not to mention adequately cited.

Please be careful with biographies of living persons

I take your agreement with Clean-Keeper's edit in keeping the term "pro-choice" as meaning that you now believe pro-choice is the correct term. Good, now we can move on. Naapple (Talk) 07:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

From the source:"Mitt Romney has publicly acknowledged changing his views on abortion, from what was an "effectively pro-choice" position to a "firmly pro-life" stand." And your misguided assumption of bad faith is noted.TMCk (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Add. Linked from the same source:"The "pro-choice" candidate for senator, and later governor, of Massachusetts is now the "pro-life" candidate for president of the United States."TMCk (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Naaples, this Boston Globe article explains his personal view here [3] as well the WAPO article here [4] and they both indicate his position which is similar if not identical to the LDS church. Granted these articles 6 years old but I'm sure they're the same position he still holds today. There is a factcheck article correcting the Obama advertisement [5] ViriiK (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The LDS stuff isn't so much of an issue as the semantics of this pro-life wording. I think a comparison between LDS and Romey's positions would be fine if it clarified the issue. Naapple (Talk) 07:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned about the edit warring taking place while the issue is under discussion. I'm not going to mention anyone by name--but I strongly recommend that Cwobeel and Naaple cease and desist.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I was only trying to keep the paragraph in question in its original form until a consensus was reached. I'm done editing for the night, though. Naapple (Talk) 07:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the issue at hand, Romney says he is "pro-life." Per MOS:IDENTITY that is how we must describe him. Not only does our policy support "pro-life", there is no consensus to change it. Our efforts here are best devoted to expressing the nuance of his "pro-life" position. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Pro-life is a marketing name chosen for themselves by American anti-abortionists, and picked up by some (but certainly not all) similar groups in other countries. Remember that this article is in a global encyclopaedia. It's not a good formal name for such people. Many are pro-war at times. Many are pro-capital punishment. Such activities don't help life that much. Stick to the non-political term of anti-abortion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Earlier in the thread, ViriiK suggested (at 23:27, 2 August 2012), if I understood rightly, that we put "pro-life" in quote marks and wikilink. I think this would be useful to readers to put quote marks on "pro-life" under Political Positions, since there is no further explanation there for a term which does not have so much currency outside the US, and I'm afraid we cannot assume that readers will invariably read the entire article: quote marks will signal that this is a specific ("marketing", if you like) term and so clarify the need for the wikilink. Alfietucker (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That would run afoul of WP:BADEMPHASIS.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it would: the WP policy is that quote marks "are discouraged" unless they are "to show that you are using the correct word". Clearly "pro-life" is the "correct" term quoted from Romney's promotional literature. Alfietucker (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Even when you say anti-abortion, it is extremely ambiguous in the world (anyone can assume all forms of abortion ie Catholic Church) and goes against the sources that explains that he opposes legal abortion except in cases of.... However Romney did identify himself as pro-life so MOS:IDENTITY holds precedence first unless you're willing to explain in detail of how pro-life. For that category, we're talking about political positions he's taken based on American policies in America. ViriiK (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood about the ambiguity - but "pro-life" without clarification for non-US readers seems worse. Giving a Wikilink to the main article is some help, but as has been pointed out - both by myself and others - implies a broader support for "pro-life" than is actually the case. Better, I would think, to have "pro-life" Wikilinked and write something like "Romney broadly supports pro-life," then have a footnote to appear under Notes outlining his actual policy. That wording, incidentally, would mitigate the case for having quote marks around "pro-life", since it would clearly signal its use as a noun. Alfietucker (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it certainly needs to be clarified, both for Romney's specific views, and for non-American readers. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the same idea that Wasted used for the Cranbrook incident? ViriiK (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

ViriiK - sorry, I (and possibly some others) don't know what you're referring to. Could you please supply a link, or briefly explain? Alfietucker (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Read Wasted's minimalist proposal above. You'll see what I mean. ViriiK (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry: it's not on this current page; assuming it's been archived, I'd rather not plough through the archive box to find it - I haven't the time - but would prefer to keep focused on this present discussion. [EDIT: Since writing this, I've discovered the topic ViriiK was referring to: Minimalist proposal - sorry for misunderstanding. So I guess the answer to your original question is yes, I'm proposing something similar though quite independently of Wasted's earlier proposal.]

Just to recap, the issue is that while "pro-life" may be meaningful to US readers, it is not such a standard term outside the US and so needs clarification. QED - my initial impression was that it was a euphemism; I understand that this is not intended, but it does show how a non-US reader might see it. It is also clear from this discussion that Romney is not a "paid up" member of the "pro-life" lobby but has his own take on the issue of abortion, maybe influenced by his LDS background, so saying he is "pro-life" is very approximate. On further reflection, it would offer some clarification, or avoid a degree of misunderstanding, if we wrote something like: "Romney has broadly aligned himself with pro-life," then add a footnote (as I previously suggested) or detailed citation. Alfietucker (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a debate that extends well beyond this article. All of the possible choices for naming are pretty bad, which is why these two recent discussions - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-22/Abortion-rights movement - both went on forever without reaching any conclusion, as far as I can tell. There used to be a guideline that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" should be used in articles when describing peoples' stances, but I can't find the guideline now ... But whatever the overall guideline is, if there is one, should be followed here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I do think there's a chance we can reach a solution/compromise here (at least for this instance) which everyone is reasonably happy with. I'm all for clarification rather than simply sticking with names/terminology which are bound to confuse non-US readers. Alfietucker (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the common meaning of the term "pro-life" is against abortion, and in favor of more governmental restrictions/prohibitions of it. And this is a case where a primary source may be inaccurate. From his track record there a good chance that he is actually pro-choice and is saying that he is pro-life. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem here. Use the terminology that Romney himself uses. It does not matter if that term is ambiguous, it is not for us to try and figure out what Romeny really means or does not mean. Arzel (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody here is suggesting that we "[WP:OR|figure] out" [sic] what he "really means": clearly there are published sources out there which have relevant information, and I suggest that these should be used to clarify Romney's position on this issue. Alfietucker (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You just posted on my page in an attempt to be civil and then act like a WP:DICK here by "[sic]"ing me. What the hell is your problem? Arzel (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, calm down! I was simply quoting from your post as it then stood for clarity's sake. I suggest you take a few deep breaths and then we can continue the discussion. Alfietucker (talk)

So we say that Romney describes his position on abortion as "pro life" and explain what he intends to do to restrict abortion. We should also mention that his position has changed over time, and perhaps mention that some observers think he is not really pro-life, provided that is a significant view. TFD (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair to me. Alfietucker (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think TFD's suggestion is the way to go. Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just providing some information and am not deep in enough on this to have an opinion regarding content. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder to the editors that the wording should only be a sentence or less because this should just be a BLP summary of the somewhat hefty section at Political positions of Mitt Romney. What exactly is the proposed wording? 72Dino (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has evolved some distance since the opening post: it seems to me we're just about reaching consensus about how the information about Romney's stance on abortion should be presented. Give me a bit of time and I can have a go at a proposed wording and footnote: by tomorrow, perhaps - unless someone else wants a go? Alfietucker (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go for it. Cwobeel (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed wording

OK, how about this (re. Political positions):

• Replace the second sentence from "Romney is pro-life, a position that developed in 2005, having formerly favored legalized abortion during his runs for the Massachusetts Senate and governorship." with "Romney has identified himself as “pro-life” since 2005, opposing abortion “except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother”."

Citations [6] and [7]

• Add a footnote to this as follows: "Romney’s cited exceptions regarding abortion are in line with his LDS upbringing. He has also amended his position on stem cell research: having once supported embryonic stem cell research in general, he is now against cloning embryos for scientific research, insisting that “surplus embryos” should be used instead."

Citation [8]

This both clarifies his position on abortion, which we agree is not orthodox "pro-life", and also offers information on his position on stem cell research - which again differs from "pro-life" - without cluttering the main text (curiously there's otherwise no mention at present about his stem cell policy in the article at all).

Any thoughts? Alfietucker (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

To me that sounds accurate and concise. 72Dino (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It is good, but somehow omits the fact that he had a very different view before 2005, so you need to add something there. Cwobeel (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel - I did consider/hesitate over whether I should keep that in or not, but decided on the current wording as a) Romney's change of policy is covered elsewhere in the article; b) the priority in Political positions is to make clear what his *present* policy is; c) I was mindful to keep it short. However if other editors think that Romney's change of policy should be mentioned in this section I'm happy to add another dozen words or so. Alfietucker (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that piece is crucial as is depicts very clearly Romney's political position evolution. Cwobeel (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, well then how about: "Romney has identified himself as “pro-life” since 2005: having previously favored legalized abortion during his runs for the Massachusetts Senate and governorship, he now opposes abortion “except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother”." Alfietucker (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Prefect! Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Any other comments? Alfietucker (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, since we've had an entire weekend and then some for people to lodge their comments and have only had assent to the proposed wording I've gone ahead and put this into the article. Alfietucker (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Forcible haircut

Ok, we're trying for some BRD here. The B and R are taken care of; time for the D. Arzel, I'm looking at you.

The sentence in question is:

Romney was involved in many pranks during this time including bullying a homosexual classmate.

Arzel just reverted it to remove the highlighted section. He did not specify what policies drove his actions, so I'm requesting that he do so now. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the archives, I see no point in rehashing a long contentious issue with you. Arzel (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but "go fish" is not an adequate response. You need to explain what policies justify your action. If you can't, I will revert. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you revert I will report you. As I said this has been discussed thoroughly and concensus was reached, you cannot come along and simply say that the recent concensus is now void because you don't feel like reading the archives. Arzel (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to report me for, but go ahead and threaten me if you like. The existence of a consensus in the past is interesting, but it doesn't equate to a consensus today. That's why I used BRD to press the issue. Unfortunately, you're not doing your part by explaining why the editors currently involved in this article should omit the gay bullying issue. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Still-IP, there are many Talk discussions on this, starting the end of Talk:Mitt_Romney/Archive 12, taking up much of Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 13 including a lengthy straw poll with over thirty responses, discussed a couple of times again in Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 14, dominating Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 15, and being argued over again at Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 16. Also note that the proposed text that was debated in the straw polls and later is quite different from what you tried to add. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not a useful reply. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

And it was brought up most recently a few days above on the current talk page at #Romney's behavior at Cranbrook school. It's a useful reply because you're not going to come up with any argument for including the Cranbrook incident that I, and all the others who have argued for inclusion, haven't already come up with. And you're not going to be able to change any of the opposers' minds either. Opinion is roughly equally divided on this, positions are set in stone, and in WP that means no consensus to add, and that means it stays out. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Careful: It almost sounds as if you're saying you won't change your mind no matter what. I'm sure you don't mean that, though.

I looked at the arguments brought up and I'm not at all convinced that a reasonable case was every made against inclusion. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the case against inclusion either, and if you read all those arguments, you'll see I tried to refute the 'BLP violation' argument, I tried to refute the 'it's trivial' argument, and I tried to refute the 'political hit piece' argument. But I failed, and even though I think it was decided wrongly, at some point you have to concede defeat and move on. I will try inclusion again after the election. But to keep bringing it up over and over again now is pretty much a violation of WP norms. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can point to a policy I'd be violating, that would be helpful. As for norms, I'd say that ignoring policy is a bigger problem. It's not that you tried and failed, it's that you tried, succeeded but policy was not followed. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Still-IP, you were Bold, Arzel Reverted, and now it's time to Discuss, which means that it's on you to explain your edit. If you don't have a cogent argument, the discussion is pretty much over. If the sole purpose for your edit was to "see who would revert", then your initial edit was disruptive, by definition, because it wasn't done with the intent of improving the article. Feel free to do whatever you think you can get away with, but just know that this discussion as well as your edit history over the last 72 hours is going to make a tasty AN/I complaint. Belchfire-TALK 20:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to bring up an example of the argument PRO inclusion:

WP:WELLKNOWN states: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The Cranbrook event is well documented, as we have multiple reliable sources. It is noteworthy, as it reached national discourse and was notable enough to warrant an apology from Romney many years later. It is relevant, as bullying and gay rights are an major issue in America, and Romney is a hopeful to become America's leader. But I emphasize, we will not add any implications or claims of his political stances or character. We will only report the facts of what transpired at Cranbrook.--Ziggypowe (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say the ball is in your court now. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You didn't even get the ball back over the net. All you did is copy-paste one of the failed arguments from the earlier discussion you are were ignoring. You know... the discussion that resulted in a consensus against your edit. If you don't have a better argument, I see no need to waste any more time on this. Belchfire-TALK 20:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

See, characterizing it as a "failed argument" is not itself a refutation. Do you have a refutation? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe WP:CONSENSUS is the policy that applies here. Right now there is no consensus is to add that content, as stated by Wasted Time. A consensus on the talk page would need to be achieved in order to add the content. 72Dino (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, consensus applies, which is why I'm talking about it here. But consensus is not independent of Wikipedia policies, it is a reflection of them. I've posted an argument for inclusion. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have modified the section heading here from "gay bullying" to "forcible haircut". There is no indication that anyone involved in the incident knew or suspected that the alleged victim would later come out as gay. To accuse Romney of "gay bullying" is therefore less accurate than discussing a forcible haircut (it's also inflammatory and a possible BLP violation, even at a talk page).108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

My question has always been this: what does Lauber's homosexuality have to do with the incident at hand? Even the primary source basically shows it has NOTHING to do with it even later clarification that it had to do with the Cranbrook Look rather than homosexuality. No to adding because it's blatantly pushing POV as Still is known to do. He basically ignored the original source and made up his own story. ViriiK (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's just skip the BS, Still-IP. I want actual valid Reliable Sources to back up your point that Romney did this because of Lauber's homosexuality and how. If you accuse or attack other users of not knowing the rules which you blatantly do yourself, I'm going to speak for the majority of the editors here that this conversation is done and there is a consensus to leave this POV out. ViriiK (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Leave it out on the merits of what? None of the opponents of inclusion have furnished a refutation. Please provide a detailed rebuttal against inclusion. Also, just for clarity there was no consensus for or against inclusion during the archived discussions. The debate just ended, probably out of attrition.--Ziggypowe (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We leave it out on the merits of the discussion already concluded. Stop wasting your time and ours. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no merits concluded against inclusion. There was just claims of trivia and political hit jobs with no rationale or proof to corroborate those apocryphal assertions. Again, please provide a detailed rebuttal against inclusion.--Ziggypowe (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Two things. The question was directed at Still-IP which I'm questioning why he demands we must include the homosexuality part into any inclusion we make unless you are on the same page with him? If you want to help him out, I want to know where in any Reliable Sources that we should associate "gay-bashing" with this incident. If neither you or Still-IP have a good reason, it's omitted because it's a violation of WP:LIBEL. Second, the discussion is long past and the consensus will always remain not to include and that's fairly been consistent among editors here. ViriiK (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the issue as I see it: this is Romney's biography. It's not an expounding of the Democrats' opposition research. Within the scope of Romney's life, the incident isn't even a footnote. It's simply not a meaningful part of his life narrative.

If the hazing incident deserves inclusion anywhere (which is hypothetical in this discussion), it would be in one of the articles about the campaign. And there it would be treated as a political ploy on the part of Romney's opponents, because that's exactly what it is. But we aren't going to decide that here. Belchfire-TALK 01:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

According to our sources (remember those?), Romney forced a haircut because he considered his victim's hair to be effeminately long. In other words, he was enforcing traditional sex roles, which happen to be homophobic.

I'm explaining this because, well, it's obvious and you really should understand, but it's not what we should be talking about. Rather, we should be talking about the fact that this is relevant to Romney's character and how he is seen. Again, your opinion is completely irrelevant. All that matters is that our secondary sources support the relevance of this incident, and they do.

You need to step back and let the facts speak, even if you disagree with them. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Where in the Washington Post article? Please do quote exactly from there. If you need help with the link to the article, it's right here [9] Feel free to start quoting for us. ViriiK (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not a proponent of adding content about the aggrieved party's sexuality, nor am I an opponent. Though the Washington Post did state, "John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality." But I am not interested in adding the sexuality facet of the Cranbrook episode. Also, people interpreting the espousing of the inclusion of legitimate, sound content because it may reflect poorly on the subject as an political attack or an insidious democratic agenda is erroneous. There is no reasonable way to discern the motivations for inclusion of this content or any content on Wikipedia so I urge people to keep their statements to concrete arguments not based on supposition. The following proposed content is completely in conformity with Wikipedia's principles and is sound:

"In 2012, Romney faced allegations as five former classmates described a 1965 episode wherein Romney, then a senior, took the lead in holding down a younger student while cutting his long, bleached-blond hair with scissors. Romney said that he does not recall the incident, though he acknowledged that he may have participated in some high school "hijinks and pranks" that went too far, and he apologized for any harm that resulted from them."

This content is sound, unprejudiced, and contains no claims of Romney's character. This content is apt for inclusion.--Ziggypowe (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Up above Still-24.... said it IS about his character. You fans of trivial election time dirt need to work together more on your case. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but Zig and I are different people. Nonetheless, we're capable of agreeing on the same conclusion for different reasons. In this case, though, you're making out more of a disagreement than exists. The content Zig endorses does indeed lack any comments about his character, and that helps it remain neutral. However, the reason that secondary sources consider it relevant is that they believe it reflects upon his character. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That is in the introduction paragraph but it is later disproven in the article it showed that it had nothing to do with his homosexuality. As for secondary sources, I'm still interested in what those secondary sources are? Especially they're going to be needed if you guys still want to push for inclusion. ViriiK (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources to substantiate what facet for the event? I do not champion for or against the inclusion of Lauber's sexuality because it is not explicitly stated that Romney perpetrated the assault on Lauber because he is gay. If you are asking for secondary sources in general about the inclusion of the proposed content you can find that here (under references). Also, HiLo48, please prove your claims of this being "election time dirt" by us or democrats because you have not even began to prove those apocryphal claims since this debate was initiated long ago.--Ziggypowe (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Stupid request. But you and I both know it's true. HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you know? Are you psychic? That is not a legitimate argument as it is based on abstract conjecture. Base your argument on concrete facts rather than unfounded supposition. Again, please provide a legitimate rebuttal against inclusion.--Ziggypowe (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, I think you're taking this too far. Rather than pretending to be a mind-reader by ascribing your motivations to others, I recommend that you deal with the issues themselves. Making it personal is counterproductive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge that it's possible that someone wants to argue right now for the inclusion of negative content on Romney just because it seems interesting, but it's also bloody obvious that the vast majority of those wanting to include it would be his political opponents and their supporters. I don't need to be a mind reader nor find sources to claim that. To claim otherwise would be just stupid. If any of you supporting inclusion are in that category of totally objective but interested observers, I apologise, but I guess we will never really know who you are. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not "bloody obvious" to me, and it's not the least bit relevant. Focus on the article, not what you imagine people's motivations might be. You are on the edge of civility here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That's bordering Original Research. A) There is no gay-bashing as you tried to do here especially with the start of this topic. I don't care anymore how you interpreted it because it's not there in the Washington Post article and "your opinion is completely irrelevant". B) This has been discussed ad nauseam especially with Wasted's statement way above there saying this will be included in the future should the need warrant it especially after the election.. ViriiK (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What I've repeatedly reminded you is that we can't replace secondary sources with our personal opinions. Consider this another reminder. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What I've repeatedly tried to remind you the questioning is where is the gay-bashing actually occurring? You do have the exact quotation in full that gives the full reasoning for Lauber to have his haircut? I'll answer this question for you. There isn't going to be any. I noticed that when you used the term "effeminately long" which is not even used in the Washington Post article. So I investigated in relations to Lauber and it turns out you are basing your conjecture and opinions off of unreliable sources to formulate your own opinion. Meanwhile Wasted has already discussed this and you can go ahead and dismiss my entire statement with your excuse of "your opinion is completely irrelevant." Especially I call your motive into question because you started this talk page with a libelous accusation against Mitt Romney violating WP:LIBEL. ViriiK (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Falsely accusing me of libel is itself libelous. Think this through and get back to me when you do. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right that falsely accusing people is libelous. I completely agree. However in this case, it is truly libelous of you to do so because your accusation against Mitt Romney has no basis. Otherwise, if I'm falsly accusing you, do you have evidence of Mitt Romney gay-bashing? ViriiK (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You are being argumentative and counterproductive. The only one who keeps talking about gay-bashing is you. Seriously, search for the term on this page and it shows up over a dozen times, but it's always you using it. The only exception is another editor responding to you and reminding you that nobody is suggesting that we include that term.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's libel to repeat what a newspaper says. However, accusing me of libel is a violation of WP:LEGAL. You really do need to stop. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Did I make a legal threat? I believe I have not unless you strongly believe I have and I ask you to please link the legal threat that I supposedly have implemented against you. Now, I asked you again. Where is your basis that Mitt Romney is gay-bashing. ViriiK (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Come on, I just pointed out that nobody here is talking about "gay-bashing" but you. As far as I can tell, you're using it as a straw man. I'm sure you can do better than that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

[10] & [11] This is exactly what I'm talking about and have maintained that stance consistently. Your straw man accusation is moot. Seems that you just confirmed to me that I have not threatened legal action against you. ViriiK (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to click on that link and notice that it doesn't have any mention "gay-bashing". Instead, it closely paraphrases published newspaper articles, none of which have been sued for libel. These papers identify the student as gay and repeat the testimony of the five independent witnesses who agree that Romney bullied this student. There are secondary sources which speak of him as "bullying a gay teen-age boy", pretty much the phrase I used here. [12]

Really, you've violatingWP:LEGAL, not to mention various policies about civility and behavior. You need to focus on what's actually being said and avoid putting your inaccurate summaries into other people's mouths. This is not productive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, no I'm not violating WP:LEGAL. You are using that template wrong for the wrong reasons. A) Fact: I did not make any legal threats. B) Gay-bashing is synonymous with gay-bullying which I don't endorse either (ie: my cousin is gay, my brother in law is gay). Either way how I used the term does not matter. I want you to answer the question of where did Mitt Romney conduct "gay bullying" with the sources. I want you to quote them specifically. That apparently is too hard of a task and is falling on deaf ears. May I remind you of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:AGF. I informed you that you were violating WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV by using those terms, that's it. Your WP:LEGAL has zero bearing on this and it's amusing to me that you did not read that template at all. ViriiK (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We have secondary sources that actually do use the term "gay bashing"[13], so unless you want to go accuse the NY Daily News of libel, too, you're barking up the wrong tree here. It really doesn't matter what you personally endorse, only what our sources say. And if you actually read WP:LEGAL, you'll see that claims of libel are a violation. Your behavior at this point is tedious and counterproductive. I would like to be discussing this article, but you seem uninterested. If you change your mind, let me know. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So you are simply parsing what another person on a news blog said based on what they've read from the Washington Post? That isn't even a Reliable Source. Especially when that link doesn't really conform by the standard of WP:NEWSBLOG. Now WP:LEGAL specifically deals with the fact I supposedly am accusing you of using libel against me. I simply stated that I was informing you that you were in violation of WP:LIBEL which a certain user did remove the offending statement. Another thing was that I questioned why you were insistent on the whole "homophobic" accusations against Mitt Romney without any standing based on the Washington Post story. These other "secondary sources" as you claim did not do the researches themselves as the Washington Post did. They simply repeated and interpreted in their own ways. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable. ViriiK (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct, it does not conform to WP:NEWSBLOG. That's because it's not a blog, it's a regular article and the author is a staff writer for the paper. Now, when you're ready to discuss the article instead of making false claims about me, I'll still be here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you think, you can think that way. This discussion is permanently done and I will end this conversation with you. It is obvious that this is going nowhere and this Gay bullying. (your words, not other sites) will not be included in the article. If you fight for inclusion, I will vote No and leave it at that because you are POV-pushing editor. Even Ziggypowe does not want to include that term or any similar words unlike you. Good luck. Thank you. ViriiK (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the facts

Still-IP according to the second link claims that "he was enforcing traditional sex roles". What sources says this? We do not know what sources he bases this on. So the only assumption I had to make was that he based this on WP:OR.

Still-IP according to the second link claims that Lauber's hair were "effeminately long" but the Washington Post article does not use the term "effeminately long" or any variations of that. The only statement that describe Lauber's hair was this Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it. [14] The only assumption I had to make was that he based this on WP:OR or Unreliable Sources.

Still-IP according to the first link accused Mitt Romney of Gay bullying. in the heading but the Washington Post did not make that claim themselves. There are a lot of hints dropped throughout the Washington Post that Lauber was gay but there is zero proof that Mitt Romney did "Gay bullying." So the only assumption I had to make was that he based this on WP:OR. ViriiK (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• As this discussion is going nowhere and accomplishing nothing, unless somebody offers a compelling reason not to do so, I'm going to archive it. Objections? Belchfire-TALK 06:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to archive this thread. It is still active. Archiving is for old threads that may be inactive. Also, no one is providing a refutation against inclusion of the Cranbrook episode. I have asked for a refutation several times. Users must do more than just state they oppose or support, as consensus is reached through discussion not the number of opposes or supports. If no one can or refuses to furnish a rebuttal then the content will be apt for inclusion.--Ziggypowe (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. Discussions can be archived in place at any time, when they are unproductive. The Cranbrook incident has already been dealt with, recently. There's really nothing novel about your arguments, and you aren't entitled to any refutation. I asked for compelling reasons. If you have one besides WP:IDHT, now's the time to let it be known. Belchfire-TALK 06:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:IDHT does not apply here because no one has given a actual refutation here nor in the archived discussions. Likewise, the previous discussions were ended abruptly with no clear consensus either way so I would not say it has been dealt with. Also, the purpose of the talk pages is to debate and discuss discrepancies so I should receive an refutation, contrary to your statement. You claim "There's really nothing novel about your arguments". This likely means you must not have read the archived discussions (SEE HERE). Any objective, competent person can see that my arguments there are sound and that my arguments were meet with nothing but claims of triviality and unproven claims of political motives. This content is apt per WP:WELLKNOWN and is legitimate content for inclusion.--Ziggypowe (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, it would be premature to archive this active discussion. It almost seems as if Belchfire were suggesting it as a way to avoid having to actually refute the arguments in favor of inclusion, but I'm sure that can't be the case. No doubt, he has some argument that he feels is compelling; it's just a matter of getting him to share it. Belchfire, I'm prove me right: share your refutation. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have stated before, WP:WELLKNOWN declares: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The Cranbrook event is well documented, as we have multiple reliable sources. It is noteworthy, as it reached national discourse and was notable enough to warrant an apology from Romney many years later. It is relevant, as bullying and gay rights are an major issue in America, and Romney is a hopeful to become America's leader. But I emphasize, we will not add any implications or claims of his political stances or character. We will only report the facts of what transpired at Cranbrook. Since this debate arose there have been no refutation of inclusion, just unfounded claims of political motives. If someone does not provide a refutation not based on abstract conjecture I will add the Cranbrook incident in the article. Please discuss.--Ziggypowe (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Then give a summary of what you will be using to describe the incident in question so that we can make that determination before you go ahead and add it yourself despite archived discussions that are against the inclusion of this. You have linked the archives and you seem to ignore those discussions. Also Wasted has already stated his above reasons a long time ago way above there

Tcolgan001, I share your frustration that any mention of this incident has been blocked from inclusion in this article (and anywhere in Wikipedia, for that matter), but after beating my head against this particular wall for long enough, I can tell you it just isn't going to happen under the current conditions. Sometime down the road, maybe after the election or after Romney's political career is over, I'll try again.

So since Wasted has already given his reasons for blocking this, you seem content on ignoring that statement.

First: Provide what you are going to write

Second: Ask for consensus if your write up is good.

That's all I ask and if your write up doesn't have consensus, it will just go back to being prevented from being added in despite any possible objections. ViriiK (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) My personal opinion is that this wouldn't make the top 100 things to include about this person in a biography. That's about it. Arkon (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You can add it, Ziggy, and it will be reverted, for reasons that have been explained repeatedly, but that you choose to ignore. Belchfire-TALK 23:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Last call. Are there any legitimate objections to archiving this section? Belchfire-TALK 23:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we're still discussing this issue, so it's going to have to remain open. If you're convinced it's not productive, you are free to leave, but not free to decide for the rest of us. Thank you for understanding. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And who is we? I see you making your case, and everyone else rejecting it. Arkon (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not offer inaccurate summaries. It is counterproductive. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Again there is no reason to archive, as this thread is ongoing. I participated in the archived discussions and surely I am not ignoring past statements. Also, with respect to Wasted's statement, he was stating people are simply trying to preclude inclusion and has said in the past that some people simply don't want it in the article. Wasted was not stating that the opponents of inclusion have furnished a comprehensible , sound argument against inclusion and thus we should stop championing inclusion. The problem is the principal argument here and in the archived discussions is a fallacious one based on unfounded supposition. This argument is that there is malicious political intent behind inclusion, which is indeterminate and not a valid argument. As for the content I wish to add, see the following:

"In 2012, Romney faced allegations as five former classmates described a 1965 episode wherein Romney, then a senior, took the lead in holding down a younger student while cutting his long, bleached-blond hair with scissors. Romney said that he does not recall the incident, though he acknowledged that he may have participated in some high school "hijinks and pranks" that went too far, and he apologized for any harm that resulted from them."

Please discuss.--Ziggypowe (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As you might expect, I think this is a reasonable inclusion. It's accurate, meets WP:NPOV and improves the article. If I were reading it and noticed that the haircut incident was omitted, I would immediately conclude that the article is biased and censored. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Too long and gives too much undue weight to that segment of Mitt Romney's life. You are proposing to expand that part of the section by 32%. You make that part of his life insignificant compared to this 1 day incident. ViriiK (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to provide an alternative that is more compact but still meets Wikipedia policies. I would be willing to consider alternatives if you have any. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A minimalist proposal

Picking up on what ViriiK and Still-IP just said, here's a really minimalist alternative:

• Change the current main text "Romney was involved in many pranks." to "Romney was involved in many pranks, some of which he later said may have gone too far and apologized for."
• Then at the end of the current Note 1 that describes the pranks, append: "In 2012, five former classmates described a 1965 episode wherein Romney, then a senior, took the lead in holding down a younger student while cutting his long, bleached-blond hair with scissors. Romney said that he does not recall the incident, though he acknowledged that he may have participated in some high school "hijinks and pranks" that went too far, and he apologized for any harm that resulted from them."

This way the weighting of the main text is barely affected, and the addition to it is something Romney said himself. But in the process, the reader is clued in that the Note will contain more details about what may have gone too far. And the expanded Note would contain the wording we've been talking about all along, including a slightly longer repetition of Romney's response. (Note I removed the 'faced allegations' text from what Ziggypowe wrote, which wasn't in the Archive 15 straw poll and makes it incorrectly sound like it's become a legal issue.) What do you all think about this proposal? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I support this proposal, except for one thing. Mitt Romney dog incident looks fairly stable to me, and so a long note about it is not needed in this main article. If we're going to make this article even more obese by describing the haircut, then we need to nip and tuck elsewhere.108.18.174.123 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Wasted Time, I think that is a good compromise. Viewmont Viking (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I like it very much. I hope people can see that this is legitimate content and are willing to compromise. I think this would be a good compromise so we may all move on to bigger and better things. I fully support inclusion of Wasted's proposed content. Thank You.--Ziggypowe (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Belchfire-TALK 18:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Ok - It's not ideal, but it's an improvement, so I'll accept it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse I support inclusion of Wasted's content.--Ziggypowe (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse but only if details about Mitt Romney dog incident are left to that sub-article.108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CRIME Allegations against Romney from 40 years ago, which can never be proven by the way, deserve no place in the mainspace article. Arzel (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRIME is not applicable here. The Cranbrook episode is not a legal matter and Romney is not facing legal charges, repercussions, or being accused of a crime. --Ziggypowe (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse. well summarized. Cwobeel (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Naapple (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Tcolgan001 (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wasted Time - it looks like we have consensus. Will you change it? Tcolgan001 (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, now done. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The [ post of Ziggypowe (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC) ] speaks with resounding clarity on the subject and his paragraph should replace the current entry . I believe it's reasonable to include the fact that unsubstantiated allegations were made and then cite an appropriate article as a reference, without unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally) rendering an opinion. It is certainly worthwhile mentioning, but it shouldn't be presented as if it were entirely factual, especially since it is merely conjecture. [23:44, August 8, 2012‎ 24.185.180.245]

Thanks for posting here, but please don't interject a comment into the middle of an old discussion like this, it makes it very difficult to follow. The Ziggypowe text that you like is in fact now in the article, see Note 1. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 presidential campaign

We need in this section a bit more about the tax returns issue, given the vitriol between the campaigns. It is notable and there is an abundance of sources. Cwobeel (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean in the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 article? ViriiK (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There is always vitriol between the campaigns, that's a given. What the article currently says - "Romney has faced demands from Democrats to release additional years of his tax returns, an action a number of Republicans also think would be wise, but has been adamant that he will not.[330]" - is still sufficient, since nothing has changed since then. The Harry Reid stuff says something about Reid's politics-as-boxing style, but it doesn't say anything about Romney. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

See, that's not entirely neutral. Truth is, it's not just that some Republicans consider showing is returns to be wise, they've actively called for it, just like the Democrats have. This was in the article a while back, but got "lost". Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Saying it would be wise is the same as calling for it. But I don't think you would say any Republicans are demanding that Romney release his returns. Democrats want the returns released in the hopes that there is something in there that is more damaging than what's already released ... but are also happy if Romney doesn't release them, because then they can bash Mitt for not doing it the rest of the way. The more theatrical they can be on the subject, the better, hence "demanding". Some Republicans want the returns released because they think the drip, drip, drip on the subject for the rest of the campaign will be worse than actually getting them out now, taking whatever hits come from it, and then getting past it. Hence "wise". Wasted Time R (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. In matters like these, I usually look to our sources for guidance. Most of the articles are full of speculation about the damaging contents of these tax returns, but the few that talk about Republicans encouraging him to show his tax returns fit what you said. For example, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78599.html. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I tracked down the right article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/politics/romney-steadfast-against-release-of-more-tax-returns.html?_r=1

Here's a quote:

On Tuesday, the editors of National Review wrote that the campaign was “playing into the president’s hands” and predicted that Mr. Romney would eventually have to give in. “The only question is whether he releases more returns now, or later — after playing more defense on the issue and sustaining more hits,” they wrote. “There will surely be a press feeding frenzy over new returns, but better to weather it in the middle of July.”

In the last several days, similar calls have come from Republican pundits and governors, and from some of Mr. Romney’s former rivals for the party’s nomination.

“Politically, I think that would help him,” Representative Ron Paul of Texas told Politico. “In the scheme of things politically, you know, it looks like releasing tax returns is what the people want.”

The New Hampshire party chairman, Wayne MacDonald, said in an interview on Wednesday, “Certainly, I don’t think Mitt Romney has anything to hide, and probably the best thing to do is to eliminate any chance” of giving Democrats an issue.

What do you think? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all these people think it would be politically wise for Romney to release more returns and get this issue behind him. Just what I said above. I'm not sure what we're in disagreement about. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have a substantive disagreement here, just some quibbles over wording. My main concern is with the passiveness of the following:

an action a number of Republicans also think would be wise

This is true, but it's more that they have publicly asked him to show his returns, which is more active than just having an opinion. Is that clearer? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anyone "asking" him directly or even acknowledging that they've contacted him directly about the issue. These are all roundabout locutions that you've quoted. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

If anyone wants to add a note about this to the article here is a source for it. --wintonian ^talk 15:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The BBC are making this seem as if it's an exceptional event, it is not! --Τασουλα (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

True and I didn't realise how out of date the BBC piece was at the time. --wintonian ^talk 22:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed this whilst browsing the website. The lock is common practice but I'm guessing it became 'newsworthy' once Colbert told people to edit in numbers. Funny story. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The Mitt article has been semi-protected almost all the time for a long time. The only thing new was semi-protecting the veep possibles. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether it be due to ignorance or bias, the spin which implies that them "intermediate" measure of edit=sutoconfirmed is sort of a suppressive "lockdown" is slanted spin. North8000 (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

This article says, "Romney’s cited exceptions regarding abortion are in line with his LDS upbringing." The cited source is "http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Stem-Cell.php". Whether this source supports the statement or not, it seems like an unreliable source, since it does not give info about its authors. Anyway, please verify whether this is a reliable source, and whether it supports the statement. Thank you.209.59.85.57 (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Not only is the site design cheesy (which is not, by itself, a fatal issue - but it doesn't inspire confidence), the site is also registered using anonymous domain registration, and the "About Us" page imparts absolutely NO useful information ([15]). Based on that, I would say that anything sourced solely from that website is legitimately questionable and subject to being removed if it can't be corroborated. Belchfire-TALK 20:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I take your point (speaking as the editor who rewrote the sentence about Romney's stance on abortion and put in the citations from the "Republican Candidates" site) - I (maybe mistakenly) thought that site had some standing with the Republican party and was giving the official line on Romney's stance on abortion. That can be easily fixed, though, since the info is non-contentious and will surely be backed by other possible citations. Give me a mo' and I'll find 'em. Alfietucker (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, fixed - citations (from Romney article in Boston Globe, a NYT article, and Youtube of Romney speech) confirming all the relevant points. Alfietucker (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

YouTube is no good as a source either, unless it's from some official channel (which this one isn't) and thus guaranteed not to be selectively edited. However, ontheissues.org can be used - it's considered a reliable source and passed muster during the John McCain FAC four years ago. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

@Wasted - thanks for the tip about ontheissues.org: I've now included a relevant citation from there and removed the Youtube link. Alfietucker (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dezastru (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

2002

User_talk:Kylethegreat098, you keep changing the 2002 to 1999. This goes against our sources, you're not discussing it at all, and you haven't explained why. Care to say something? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this might be a long term problem. We have sources saying both, correct? I have no idea how to reconcile them myself, might actually be RFC material. Arkon (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, why is there a date? Once you're a founder or co-founder of an organization, you can't not be a founder. Positions within a company like CEO can have dates, as positions within a company change. Founders, on the other hand, can only have a date of when they founded it. Whether or not they are associated with it anymore doesn't change that, so just remove the end date. Regards, — Moe ε 10:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It should also say CEO (like the positions box at the bottom does), which I've now added there. He held the CEO position through early 2002, when his final separation from the firm occurred. He had three leaves of absence during that time (1991-1992, late 1993-late 1994, early 1999-early 2002), which the body of the article describes but which is too much detail to get into in the infobox. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying it. :) After a bit of researching, he did leave in February 1999 for which there are references, but it's clear that he officially left the organization in 2002. I based my comments above on the original wording of singular mention of "founder" in the infobox. With CEO attached, the end date is correct. Regards, — Moe ε 12:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to conclude that there's a strong consensus to keep the 2002, based on our sources. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be strong consensus for that, which includes me, but I would prefer if the infobox would say: "Co-founder and CEO, Bain Capital (1984–2002, last three years inactive)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.174.123 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That gets into the morass of how active he was during that period. And like I said, he also took two earlier leaves of absence. Infoboxes need to keep it simple, and the dates in them are always the formal dates of beginning and ending. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. That's too much detail for a box, and the article does cover this. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's common for infoboxes to have footnotes. See John McCain, for example. In this case, a footnote would be appropriate. After all, Romney and his partners decided that, in his absence, five managing directors would oversee the company.108.18.174.123 (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's better when infoboxes don't have footnotes. The McCain one is only there because a large number of WP editors (not you) lose their minds when it comes to religious and denominational affiliation and this was the only way to keep them quiet. Infobox date spans do not say what happened during that time. Look at Tim Johnson or Joe Biden or Gabby Giffords or Mark Kirk, all of whom missed long stretches of time from Congress - none of their infoboxes try to footnote the date spans to say they really weren't in Congress during all of that time. As long as they were still officially members of Congress, the span represents that. Look at Gayle Sayers or Rico Carty or any athlete - the infobox does not to try report full seasons lost due to injury. You have to read the article to find out what happened during the timespan. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fine. I look at the main text, and it says, "He was not involved in day-to-day operations or in investment decisions for Bain Capital's next private equity fund, which was launched in 2000." This weird sentence implies that he was involved in day-to-day operations and in investment decisions for matters other than Bain Capital's next private equity fund. Why can't we say intelligibly that Romney and his partners decided that, in his absence, five managing directors would oversee the company? Just do it.108.18.174.123 (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the Bain Capital article, there's a whole subsection on the 1999-2002 period, and I go into much more detail there, including the five-person committee. But it's all overweighting to keep adding these details here. He took a two-year and a one-year leave of absence before this one, and there's zilch in this article about what positions he still held or actions he was still responsible for at Bain Capital during those times. So why should there be so much here on this one? A reader ten or twenty years from now will be completely mystified about why the third leave gets so much attention. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying, don't worry about the infobox misleading people, because they can get the straight dope in the main text. Except that the main text is necessarily misleading too. I don't get it. Please delete the weird and misleading sentence that says, "He was not involved in day-to-day operations or in investment decisions for Bain Capital's next private equity fund, which was launched in 2000." Who cares about one particular private equity fund, among many at Bain Capital??? Instead, please say intelligibly that Romney and his partners decided that, in his absence, five managing directors would oversee the company. You will have fewer words after the change. And if readers are perplexed about why this is important, they can consult the sources which explain that Obama wanted to pin everything Bain did after 1999 on Romney.108.18.174.123 (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Letting Detroit go bankrupt

This article says: "During the automotive industry crisis of 2008–2010, he supported a managed bankruptcy for the American automobile industry, accompanied by government-backed loan guarantees rather than direct government loans.[354]"

There are several problems with this. The article should make clear that a bankruptcy ultimately occurred, or at the very least "a managed bankruptcy" should be wikilinked to General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization, and the word "a" changed to "the". The Wikipedia article that is currently linked does eventually mention that the bankruptcy ultimately occurred, but you have to be an extremely diligent reader of this article to find that out. Also, Romney did not (AFAIK) support a bankruptcy of any kind for Ford Motor Company, which neither went bankrupt nor received a bailout.

As described in the sub-article about Romney's political positions, The New York Times has gone to extraordinary lengths to give the false impression that Romney thought the American automotive industry should be allowed to fail completely. Wikipedia should be careful to avoid that trap.108.18.174.123 (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please show here exactly how you think the material should be written.

(Bear in mind that everal editors were recently complaining that the Political Positions section of this bio was too long, so recent edits have been constrained by the aim of being as parsimonious as possible.)

As for Ford, although they didn't go bankrupt and they ultimately declined a bailout, they did request a bailout. Their CEO testified before the House and the Senate that even if Ford wasn't necessarily facing insolvency, it was their opinion that a bailout was necessary for the industry ("the collapse of one or both of our domestic competitors would threaten Ford because we have 80 percent overlap in supplier networks and nearly 25 percent of Ford's top dealers also own GM and Chrysler franchises"). And when did Romney specifically exclude Ford from his prescription for the automobile industry? Certainly not in his NYT editorial. Dezastru (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I already said that, at the very least "a managed bankruptcy" should be wikilinked to General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization, and the word "a" changed to "the". But if anyone else wants to make a more extensive edit to address the concerns I described, then I'd be happy to consider it.108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Qualifications for Governor

I think this article dwells too much on his eligibility for governor, going so far as to detail the party affiliation of all the commissioners who decided that he was eligible. The actual decision is here. You can see from the decision that the Massachusetts Constitution does not use the word "resident". Instead the word is "inhabitant" which has long been interpreted to be synonymous with "domicile". Romney filed Utah state tax returns when he was there running the Olympics. As the Massachusetts ballot commission observed, the Utah tax instructions define a Utah resident to include any individual who maintains a permanent place of abode in Utah "even though domiciled outside Utah". The decision of the Massachusetts ballot commission was not legally controversial, so why talk about it so much in the article? And if you're going to talk about it so much, why not be more neutral? This article currently says:

In June 2002, the Massachusetts Democratic Party challenged Romney's eligibility to run for governor, noting that state law required seven years' residence and that Romney, in his tax returns, had claimed Utah residence in 1999 and 2000.[158][159] In response, the Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission, which comprised three Republicans, one Democrat and one independent,[159] unanimously ruled that he was an eligible candidate.[160]

This is skewed and verbose. How about if you just write: "In June 2002, the Massachusetts Democratic Party challenged Romney's eligibility to run for governor, but the bipartisan Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission unanimously ruled that he was eligible."209.59.85.57 (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The party makeup of the ballot commission was a very recent addition and I agree it shouldn't be here, since the Dems were going to lose this action no matter what the makeup, given state law and the history of the residency requirement being interpreted loosely. I've added it however to the detail article on this matter, Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2002. (There actually used to be a dedicated article to this affair, but it succumbed over a year ago as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 Mitt Romney residency issue.) I've also changed the text to make clear why the commission ruled the way they did. So it now reads: "In June 2002, the Massachusetts Democratic Party challenged Romney's eligibility to run for governor, noting that state law required seven years' consecutive residence and that Romney had filed his state tax returns as a Utah resident in 1999 and 2000.[158][159] In response, the Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission unanimously ruled that he had maintained sufficient financial and personal ties to Massachusetts and was therefore an eligible candidate.[160]" (I don't like your proposed version, because it tells us nothing of why the challenge was made or why Romney prevailed.) I've kept the description in terms of "residency" because that's the term all the secondary sources being used here use. What "domicile" and "inhabitant" and "resident" all mean relative to each other is something for lawyers to sort out, not us regular folk writers and readers. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. Just about every time the American media reports about a constitutional issue, they carefully avoid quoting the actual Constitution (state or federal). The word "inhabitant" is just one of a million examples; this is not a complicated word, nor were the American constitutions meant to be too complicated for ordinary people to understand. But the media like to keep constitutional law firmly in the grasp of the lawyers rather than the regular folk. Cheers.209.59.85.57 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I put in the specific party breakdown only because the article previously said "bipartisan" about the Commission. Many states require that election-related entities be divided 50-50 between the two major parties, and some readers might think that "bipartisan" meant that. I have no objection to leaving out the 3-1-1 breakdown as long as the technically correct but potentially misleading "bipartisan" stays out as well.

The current discussion still omits Romney's response, which I'll try to add. JamesMLane t c 12:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Any commission which is not all of one party is properly described as "bi-partisan." That you dislike a term does not mean that where reliable sources use a term that we can elide their usage. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think many readers would think that "bipartisan" means 50-50. The few who do think that can go look at the cited source for the correct info. James, if there was a notable allegation that the Ballot Commission had a pro-Republican bias, would you please tell us about it? It seems to me that it was a simple, unsurprising, cut-and-dried decision. Thanks. And what was Romney's repsonse? Why is it notable?108.18.174.123 (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Fundraising abroad

This article says: "In July 2012, Romney undertook a trip to the United Kingdom, Poland, and Israel to meet heads of state to raise his credibility as a world statesman, and also to raise funds." The last five words are problematic, and not just because the funds raised on the trip were negligible compared to funds raised in the U.S., and not just because the fundraising was a negligible element of the trip abroad. My understanding is that foreign donations to U.S. campaigns are illegal, and so the current language in this article is at least giving readers the impression that Romney may have been engaged in criminal activity. Unless I misunderstand, the money was raised from Americans abroad, rather than from foreigners.108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The fundraising was undoubtedly from Americans in those nations - a large number of American citizens reside in each of the nations visited -- IIRC, American retirees are abundant in Poland, Israel and in the UK -- thus no inference of illegality is proper at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree such inference is not proper, and that's why we should make sure it doesn't happen. In addition to avoiding undue weight.108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of legality but of significance. Romney is making trips to raise funds all the time, as is Obama. Every time they appear in New York or Los Angeles or Dallas or any other place that isn't in a swing state, it's because they're attending high-priced dinners or otherwise raising funds. So sure, if Romney is going abroad he'll try to hook up with fundraisers there. But that's not the primary reason for the trip - it's cost- and time-inefficient compared to traveling domestically. And the money he got from it - $1 or 2M or whatever - is insignificant compared to the $100M per quarter he's raising. So if we don't mention in the article that he traveled to Dallas and Atlanta and a dozen other cities to raise funds, and we don't, there's no reason to mention that in connection with the foreign trip either. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't mention it. But if we do, it should be clarified that the donors were U.S. citizens abroad. Which would give it even more undue weight. Of course, if he was actually accepting money from foreigners, then it would be extremely notable, but there's no sourcing for that.108.18.174.123 (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what has been said above, this is not worth mentioning. It seems to be a the concensus as well. Viewmont Viking (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Either we need to list every single pitstop as fundraising activity, or remove it from all, except where specifically notable. Naapple (Talk) 00:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

To view the fundraising of the trip only in terms of how much was pledged relative to his campaign's overall fundraising is to neglect to consider the more notable issues:

Mitt Romney is doing something Monday morning that no candidate before him, from either party, has ever done -- hold a fundraiser in Israel....
Overseas fundraising has become somewhat of a new phenomenon in the last decade or so, with former President George W. Bush, Sens. John McCain and John Kerry also raising cash abroad, but mostly in London.

It's Israel specifically that makes this occasion unique....

The Obama campaign was quick to point out ahead of Romney's trip that then Senator Obama never raised money during his eight day foreign trip in 2008.  Obama gave a major speech in Berlin and the Romney campaign noted that the democratic candidate did an online fundraising drive after.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/07/29/romney-holds-unprecedented-fundraiser-israel

Mitt Romney’s overseas trip next week will take him to the heart of London’s scandal-ridden banking industry, as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee holds two campaign fundraisers hosted by lobbyists and executives from more than two dozen financial institutions.

The hosts of Romney’s high-dollar reception and dinner on July 26 overwhelmingly represent banks, hedge funds and other financial institutions, some of which are embroiled in the Libor rate-fixing scandal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romneys-london-fundraisers-will-take-him-to-heart-of-scandal-plagued-banking-industry/2012/07/18/gJQAzKqGuW_story.html

The former chief executive and a top lobbyist for Barclays, the bank at the center of the scandal, helped organize a Romney fund-raiser. The former chief executive, Robert E. Diamond Jr., has since withdrawn his name as the event’s co-host. The bank’s lobbyist, Patrick J. Durkin, remains a co-chairman: he has bundled $1.1 million for Mr. Romney from friends and business associates, more than any other lobbyist, according to federal records....

In a sign of just how politicized the scandal has become, 11 members of Parliament recently signed a resolution, naming Mr. Romney, that called for Barclays executives to “cease fund-raising for political candidates” and focus on rebuilding consumer confidence in the banking system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/us/politics/london-fund-raisers-may-put-mitt-romney-in-banking-scandals-glare.html

also discussed, for example, here and here. Dezastru (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

So one big point of notability is that the American citizens who Romney took money from were in Israel instead of England? Money is money, wherever it is, and I don't see how the location (Israel) becomes notable just because Kimberly Schwandt says so in a blog. People say a lot of things in blogs. This bit of minutae would better in the 2012 election sub-article than in this article. Ditto the identities of Romey's hosts in London, IMHO.108.18.174.123 (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I dare say Sheldon Adelson would disagree with you. (And you can fling ad hominems -ad feminams?- all you like, but that doesn't change the validity of arguments offered. Whether Romney was the first presumptive nominee fundraising in Israel or not is a fact, not an opinion.) Dezastru (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's also a fact that Romney had a private, intimate dinner at Netanyahu's personal residence to break the fast of the Jewish holiday Tisha-V-av. And I don't mean that as an ad hominem against Netanyahu or Romney.  :-)108.18.174.123 (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Dezastru, there are literally thousands of "facts" that could be put in this article. But most of them don't belong here, because they just aren't important or significant enough. This is one of them. Romney has been raising funds all campaign from banks, hedge funds, lobbyists, and executives, and far more of them are coming from Wall Street than from overseas. And the Wall Street financial institutions are just as scandal-ridden and ethically challenged as the London ones. And raising money in Israel is of no special significance compared to any other country. The place to get into the nitty-gritty of fundraising is the campaign article - that's what it's there for. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mormon Mission Sentence

This is kind of a nitnoid minor issue and I'm not looking for a huge religous debate, but the sentence "Most individual Mormon missionaries do not gain many converts" in the 2nd Para of the "University, France mission, marriage and children: 1965–1975" section seems odd to me. I don't have the book, so I'm not sure what exactly the reference says - opinion, statistic, something else? Not implying that the Mormons are stupid - rather I'm wondering if the book referenced actually states the above sentence as an OPINION - if so, this should be stated in the text. If instead, the reference gives actual data that backs up this claim (such as "the average Mormon only wins 5-10 people to the faith in a 2-year mission), I believe that this should also be stated (in parenthesis) in order to back up this information.
Comments? Ckruschke (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I don't have the book either, but there's File:Ratio of Converts Baptized to Full-Time Missionaries.jpg (which doesn't state its source) but indicates that the average missionary converts about 5 people. Hot Stop 12:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is a controversial statement. The point the book source makes is that the two-year mission is inefficient from the perspective of any one missionary, since they gain only a handful of converts and bear a lot of frustration, but the number of missionaries sent out is so large that the church gains a lot of converts as a net result. The analysis also depends upon whether you look at the initial convert rate (to baptism) or the retention rate (of those, how many make it to the priesthood); in some areas, the retention rate is quite low, well under 50 percent. The chart would seem to be from this book: David G. Stewart, Jr. (2007). The Law Of The Harvest: Practical Principles of Effective Missionary Work ISBN 0-9795121-0-7. I haven't read it, but the Missionary (LDS Church) article says it gives figures of 5-8 convert baptisms per missionary per year. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In Latin America, where about a third of the missionaries go, they get somewhat more converts but have a very low retention rate. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"If instead, the reference gives actual data that backs up this claim (such as "the average Mormon only wins 5-10 people to the faith in a 2-year mission), I believe that this should also be stated (in parenthesis) in order to back up this information."

I agree with this approach. Naapple (Talk) 01:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree - thanks for the info. I'll make the revision. Ckruschke (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

The sentence now says: "Most individual Mormon missionaries do not gain many converts (the average Mormon only wins 5-10 people to the faith in a 2-year mission),<!-- the church succeeds in expanding by having huge numbers of missionaries, so that the small number of conversions from each one add up-->" The new parenthetical is not a big problem, but I would prefer that it go into the hidden comment, or omitted since the footnoted source covers the matter. Parenthetically emphasizing how few converts an individual wins over will inevitably lead to some editor requesting that the hidden comment be unhidden, and wouldn't that be only fair?108.18.174.123 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where the 5-10 per mission figure came from; the only one I've seen, as mentioned above, is 4-8 (correction to what I wrote earlier) baptism converts per year per missionary. I've added the source this comes from - which I think will just squeak by as a RS - and I've put the whole thing in a Note, both the parenthetical and uncommenting the rest. This shouldn't be in the main text because it doesn't even cover the period of time (mid-late 1960s) that Romney was a missionary. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Donation of Olympics Salary

I'm not happy with the statement "he donated to charity the $1.4 million in salary and severance payments he received for his three years as president and CEO" because it conveys a false impression. I am much happier with a statement along the lines of "while he was CEO of the Olympics, Bain Capital continued to pay him a salary, and he donated the entire $1.4 million that he received from the Olympics to charity." Most readers of the current version would be under the false impression that he received only one salary for that time and he donated that to charity, which means the current version pushes a non-neutral point of view. It is true that 4 sections above this there is a passing reference to it being a paid leave of absence from Bain. But most readers won't read these two parts in the same sitting, and fewer still would be able to draw that connection. The current version gives a misleading slant on his actions. The version I propose would still give a positive perspective on Romney's actions, but temper it with a bit more reality. Alternately, I would be satisfied with removing the donation altogether, but I do think the fact he made that donation is relevant, so prefer to have the whole truth rather than none of it. Can anyone explain to me why it should remain as is?Joelmiller (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Is "that connection" that you refer to available in reliable sources? Arkon (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure quite what you mean. It is well-established that he was receiving a salary from Bain and a salary from the Olympics. That's what I meant by "that connection".Joelmiller (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's also well established that he was eating food during that time. Why is it relevant? Arkon (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Dude, you asked me whether there was a reliable source for something. I said yes. Cut the snark. If you were concerned about whether it was relevant or not, why didn't you ask that in the first place? To avoid getting too many threads going here - see my comment below here also at 2:34 explaining the relevance.Joelmiller (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean snark. Sorry if it came across like that. But point me to the source you provided please. I don't see it linked. Arkon (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My initial edit was reverted on the grounds that the article already says he was on a paid leave of absence from Bain. Perhaps this brings home my point that most readers wouldn't realize that he had two salaries at the time, given that one of the editors isn't aware that the article says so... Try paragraph 3 of Borchers, Callum; Rowland, Christopher (July 12, 2012). "Romney Stayed Longer at Bain" http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/12/government_documents_indicate_mitt_romney_continued_at_bain_after_date_when_he_says_he_left/. Joelmiller (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't just throw other referenced facts opposite other referenced facts. It has to be notable to the situation. Thus, my request for a RS that combines the two. Otherwise it's just OR. Arkon (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

To add, the article you reference doesn't mention the donation in any fashion. Arkon (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

We're clearly having a conversation where we don't understand what the other is trying to say. No question those two facts are correct, right? No question that being told that I donated all my salary to charity would affect your opinion of me, correct? No question that knowing I had two salaries when I donated one of them to charity would perhaps alter your perception of my charitability, right? Can you point me to any guidelines that say that Wikipedia articles only mention two reliably-sourced related facts together if a reliable source already does so? Joelmiller (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The conversation we are having is about putting your sentence, beside the fact in the article. Lot's of facts are correct. Demonstrate the relevance by it's references in reliable sources. And yes, I can point you to WP:OR. Arkon (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the OR link. I think I finally see what you've been trying to say. For what it's worth, yes - I first learned about the Olympics donation while reading an article discussing his Bain salary. Can't find it offhand, and need to sleep anyways... May return to this sometime later if I have the energy. Joelmiller (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Kinda feel crappy cause I am terrible at actually linking to policies/guidelines. But, yeah, If you can find enough articles in RS's that make the connection, let's add that. I'm personally all for completeness. Arkon (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

First, you should review WP:ME. As for the statement: This particular section is on the Olympic Games, not Bain. It is simply a fact that he didn't receive a salary, not some POV statement. No one's implying that he was penniless at the time, and his income comes primarily from his investments, not a CEO salary. And as you already stated, the fact that he was receiving a salary at Bain is already covered in the article elsewhere, there's no need to repost information because of what a reader may or may not do. Naapple (Talk) 02:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a fact yes. If I tell you I donated my entire salary last year to charity, sounds great. It pushes a point of view: "I'm a very generous person who gave everything I earned last year to charity". If it turns out that I was receiving a salary from someone else, you would probably feel I was misleading you. I don't think there is the potential for someone to misinterpret me saying "I received two salaries and donated one of them to charity." I think there is absolutely the potential for someone to misinterpret me saying "I donated my salary to charity". The goal is to provide factual information in an unbiased and clear format. We are supposed to be concise, but not so concise that misunderstanding results. I absolutely feel there is the reason to post information if there is a significant danger that without that information the reader will leave with a misinterpretation of the facts.Joelmiller (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

He also didn't take a salary as Governor of Massachusetts. Do we have to drag Bain Capital into that as well? The intro to the whole article describes his business career and then says he's worth $190–250 million. Even a half-awake reader will realize that he hasn't been hurting for the rent money after that. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Dunno - was he receiving a salary from Bain while governor? What's the point of the current comment about his donation? What is its relevance? It has nothing to do with his competence in running the games, does it? The section is about his running of the games, so if we go down this route, I'd also agree to eliminating it altogether. Let's be honest - it is there to push the point of view that he is generous. He was generous, but not as generous as it implies.Joelmiller (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Turns out the governor salary thing wasn't in the article anyway. I've removed the other two mentions of it. It never happened. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but are you jumping the gun? I don't see that I've reached consensus with Arkon, and (s?)he reverted exactly the change you just made when I did it. Anyways, I'll leave it to you guys to settle for now. If you guys are all happy with it as is, so am I. I'm past bedtime. Joelmiller (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's WP:BLP, so it's ok to jump a bit. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I put both the Bain & Company and Olympics salary declinations in the article originally a couple of years ago (and I thought I did for governor too, I guess not, or maybe it got lost in some editing along the way). I didn't do it to push the point of view that he is generous, like you think. I didn't do it to push any point of view. I did it because I was going through the Boston Globe series and other sources I was using to do a full rewrite/expansion of the article, and I thought, hmm, this seems of some interest and significance, let's include it. Of course now it's the election and 9/10 of the editors now here view everything through a positive vs negative political prism. And whatever I'm going to do, I'm not going to repeat any of the Bain leave material a second time, it's already overweighted as it is due to point-making and recentism. So in this case, what I put in, I can take out. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what just happened, but the issue is being discussed and so edits shouldn't happen until it's resolved. In any case, taking out facts because they may push a POV is ridiculous. Naapple (Talk) 06:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"Ridiculous" comes with the territory here. To Joel Miller, you've off base in several respects here. First, Romney's salary at Bain Capital was never that significant - he and the other partners made almost all their money from the investments they were in, the carried interest, all that stuff. Second, it's not unusual for very rich politicians to decline their salaries while holding office - Mike Bloomberg does it (via only taking $1), Nelson Rockefeller did it (via donation to charity), and I'm sure there are some other examples. It's considered a symbolic gesture to show that they're saving the public (or an organization like the Olympics) money. Both of those articles mention declining the salary, without simultaneously reiterating how the person was wealthy and could afford to do it. One possible compromise here would be to add a Note explaining the three instances (Bain & Co CEO, Olympics, Governor) and make a footnote to it from each of the occurrences. That way it's documented in the article without the dread risk of making Romney look good. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's noted in Bloomberg's page that he takes a 1 dollar salary, as it should be. I agree that a low 6 figure salary isn't much to someone worth 250 mil, and I don't think mentioning it implies that Romney is hurting financially by declining one. Naapple (Talk) 00:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)This article should say once that Bain's leave of absence was paid rather than unpaid. Not twice or thrice. Incidentally, AFAIK, the payment could have been a profit share instead of salary. Anyways, there's no need for redundancy.108.18.174.123 (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to follow up, I've now added declining the governor's salary to the article, to be consistent with the other two instances. I'm still willing to move all three to a Note, however. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Plan

The way Wasted Time mentions Romney's support of the Ryan plan is much more neutral. He has also been supporter of the general directions of the federal Paul Ryan Budget. It was changed recently what are other's thoughts. Wasted Time's Version or what is currently in the article "He has also been a strong supporter of the federal budget framework proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.[349]" Viewmont Viking (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

(Undent)It all depends upon what the sources say. The cited source is: Landler, Mark (April 4, 2012). "Budget author, a Romney ally, turns into campaign focus". New York Times. The cited source says (emphasis added):

“ While budget analysts say the two plans are similar, they are not identical. Mr. Ryan, for example, proposes overhauling the tax code, collapsing the six rates for personal income tax into two rates: 25 percent and 10 percent. Mr. Romney would retain the six rates, but cut each of them by 20 percent. Both plans would repeal the president’s health care law. But Mr. Ryan would retain the administration’s proposed cuts in Medicare, while Mr. Romney would scrap them as well.

"The idea that they are carbon copies is obviously not true," said Marc Goldwein, policy director at the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "But conceptually, there is a lot of similarity." Advisers to Mr. Romney said they did not expect him to resist comparisons between his budget plan and Mr. Ryan’s. After all, they said, not only does Mr. Romney largely support the plan, but any discussion between Mr. Romney and the White House over the budget will play to Mr. Romney’s strength on the economy, they said.

”

So, the current language is clearly wrong ("He has also been a strong supporter of the federal budget framework proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin"). Romney's people said he "largely" supports the Ryan plan, not that he "strongly" supports it. Changing that one word would be enough for me.108.18.174.123 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think "strong supporter" is accurate (I was the editor who wrote it), but I don't have a strong feeling that that phrasing must remain in the article. However, I do disagree with the assertion that "the current language is clearly wrong," as the article says his support is for the federal budget framework, which implies that he may be disagree with some of the details yet generally agree with the bigger picture. That was specifically why I wrote "budget framework" as opposed to "budget plan." Dezastru (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your intent was okay, but I doubt that many readers would distinguish between a "framework" and a "plan".108.18.174.123 (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The cited source (Landler) also says, "both [Romney] and President Obama are seizing on the Republican House budget, and its ambitious young architect, Representative Paul D. Ryan, as a defining issue of the unfolding campaign" (emphasis mine). That sounds like pretty enthusiastic support. Dezastru (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

But then Romney's positions on Ryan's plan have evolved, which may explain why it may be true that Romney has been both a strong supporter and a not-so-strong supporter of the plan:

When Ryan released his proposed federal budget a year ago, Mitt Romney greeted it coolly. He congratulated the House Budget Committee chairman for “setting the right tone”, but pointedly declined to endorse any of its details.
The coolness was understandable. Mr Ryan's budget was political dynamite....

Over the next few months, though, Mr Romney steadily warmed to Mr Ryan's plan as he faced a series of rivals from his political right. By December he was attacking Mr Gingrich for criticising it, and this past February he released a new tax plan of his own that slashed all personal tax rates by 20%. And when Mr Ryan produced a new, very similar, version of his budget on March 20th for next fiscal year, Mr Romney was effusive. “It`s a bold and exciting effort,” the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination declared. It would be “marvellous”, he said, if the Senate passed it.

http://www.economist.com/node/21553030

Romney has been particularly supportive of the gist of Paul's Medicare proposals, which have been among the most contentious aspects of Paul's plan. Romney's campaign has said, "Romney Has Repeatedly Praised The Ryan Plan – Saying It Sets 'The Right Tone' – And Notes Similarities With His Own Plan."Dezastru (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added this Politico story as a source, and changed the language to "He has also generally been a supporter of the directions of the federal Paul Ryan Budget." (108's "largely" didn't quite sound right grammatically, or I would have used it.) I agree that Romney has blown hot and cold on this, no doubt more out of political convenience than genuine changes of mind. But we can't get into the details of each hot and cold period here, and the sum of them just doesn't support "strong". We should instead stress whatever it is that Romney has proposed (incomplete and numerically challenged as it may be), since he's the guy on the top. Per the Politico piece: "“He has said it moves us in the right direction. He has said that if it’s sent to him, he would sign it. And he has said that he will put forward his own plan,” said one senior Romney adviser. “He is the presidential candidate.”"

Also Cwobeel, please pay some attention to writing and style and formatting when making your changes. Regardless of what this sentence says, it is no longer the first mention of Ryan, therefore your re-insertion of " [[Paul Ryan|Rep. Paul Ryan]] of Wisconsin" was incorrect. And also, we don't use "Rep." or "Sen." here; they are always fully spelled out. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The article currently says: "He has been a supporter of the directions of the federal Paul Ryan Budget." I suggest inserting the word "largely" or "generally", after "He has". Per Landler, Mark (April 4, 2012). "Budget author, a Romney ally, turns into campaign focus". New York Times. The word "generally" was removed today, and shouldn't have been.108.18.174.123 (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Cwobeel's point may be that the "generally" is redundant. The existence of the "... the directions of ..." qualifier already indicates a general but not complete agreement, otherwise those words would be left out. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)